A natural paradox.

If I am not born with somthing whether it be material or ideal how is it natural?

From birth are things only biological as all other acquisitions afterwards become only the subject of gain.

Birth is the natural equilibrium of nature.

Yeah, i guess puberty and aging don’t exist then. On the same note mental adaptations need not express themselves in the cradle, lol.

Thats one fallacy that people supporting ‘the blank slate’ try to commit.

What about his teeth?

The only distinction between natural/unnatural that can be made is if man’s intervention is used as the deciding factor.

When man’s intervention affects the environment to such an extent as to alter it, or to an extent where it begins affecting him then it can be called artificial.

Other than that everything is natural.

Basically it’s self-determination.

As human meddling increases it becomes a self-correcting agency.
Man imposes his will upon nature, with many positive and negative consequences, as a result man must find innovations to correct the consequences of his original intervention.
This is often referred to as progress when, in fact, there is little if no growth but a constant adjustment and a keeping-up with the consequences of our earlier innovations.

This creates a self-referential process as intervention upon intervention pile up to an extent where the original environment is lost in the past.
The original organism begins to refer back to tis own creations as its guiding standard, causing a self-referential loop Baudrilard explained wonderfully.

This, increases the need for innovation as the consequences of the amassing interventions increase exponentially creating the need for constant innovation just to keep up with the repercussions.

Metaphysically it can be connected to the mind’s attempt to order a forever increasing chaos; falling behind as entropy increases and so being pressured to find faster ordering methods, such as technology.
This increase in order, even if ephemeral, is what is artificial since it is a resitance to the natural decay of time.

It is a pocket of increasing stability in a sea of increasing instability, destined to fail because it requires effort whereas entropy occurs effortlessly.

In essence man is anti-life since he strives for an end to suffering (the flux) which would entail an end of him.
Instead of embracing life he contradicts it towards the non-existent, absent absolute.
Instead of living within nature man lives in conflict with nature; trying to correct it using his own ideals and preferences, based on his insecurities and weaknesses. and needs.

Bravo! You explained it relatively better than I ever could have! :slight_smile:

I’m talking about the idealistic metaphysical interventions.

( Satyr explained it well enough.)

Once you understand all the forms of intervention that are not of the physical biological kind it becomes apparent.

( Such interventions being the ontological,metaphysical and idealistic kind in comparison.)

Cyrene doesn’t acknowledge this probally because they deny the mind/body paradox but currently I’m trying to work on somthing substantial to explain it.

( If someone wants to explain the mind/body paradox more clearly in the thread be my guest.)

( Satyr, perhaps.)

Did you read the quote?

Did I say man was unnatural?

The distinction is made to determine at what point man’s intervention begins affecting him to an extent that exceeds the pre-existing environments that made him possible.

When man invents ideas, ideals, structures that separate him from his primordial environments, thusly creating an environment he is almost completely responsible for and this man-made environment begins affecting him, in return, this I call artificial.

The distinction is made to differentiate and so to clarify the environmental conditions that preceded man’s emergence and the ones man is not responsible for and those man brought about in the course of his becoming so as to gain an advantage or to order his environment or change it into soemthing more to his liking.

If you prefer the terms man-made and not man-made then go with those.

I prefer unnatural because it captures man’s nature as anti-natural, or anti-deterministic or reactionary and resisting.

Many human ideals are anti-life and anti-nature in that they attempt to correct or to raise man above nature or beyond it.

Most humans are anti-life and anti-existence even if they do not know it.
The idea of eradicating suffering, for example, is a veiled death-wish.

Life and suffering are inseparable and tautologies. To hope for an end to suffering is to seek an end to life and to everything that makes life possible or necessary.

Paradise, Nirvana are descriptions of death or non-existence.
The concept of timelessness is a description of non-existence.

The return to the source or to God or selflessness or perfection is a description of self-obliteration.

Well, man can not exist without affecting the environment – man’s intervention always exists – so the only thing that is outside the eye of the beholder is examining a threshold at which we can say the environment “begins affecting him” and when it does not.

Here is the threshold: the environment “begins affecting him” before he is born. Therefore, the whole perspective is moot.

I suggest people skip over it because it does not provide any concrete distinction between natural and artificial.

You can not have it both ways. If one views man as natural or just part of the environment, your distinction collapses.
All of the fluff just becomes more boring poetry and as enlightening as discussing what shapes we each see in the clouds.

Are you just avoiding the more profound question: If I am not born with something, by what right may I claim it as my own?

I suggest that you have no fear of the virtue of non-coercive transactions and combine it with the fact that man’s very existence depends on appropriating and occupying physical matter on a purely individual or non-communal manner.

Is there any room in this for a vortex? What you say has alot of merit but, there are other ends and other possible avenues not just one. Don’t you thinK? A vortex does not lead to destruction always, it does lead to new.
You almost describe a human vortex.

Its human nature to be unnatural. Deal with it!

Joker, you seem to have a bias towarsd things being natural. But how this is any different from having a moral bias.

As yo see it, a beaver is just being natural building a dam and a human is being unnatural building a car???

But what is the distiction between the two? It is man’s will to build cars and it is a beavers will to build a car. but neither will is free so I see no distiction here (unless you belive in free will).

Only your perspective of it is moot.

When the environment he produces begins affecting him, is what I said.

The environment obviously affects all organisms but when I construct a contained environment that excludes the earlier one, or selectively allows parts of it in, to such an extent that it takes over affecting the organism, as in a meme, then the man-made environment is determining the man.

If I live under the weather patterns, then I exist within nature, being affected by her. My mind and body express this effect.

If I then build a compound with controlled temperatures and humidity and the such then I am intervening to such an extent that my intervention will begin altering mind/body.
My environment is now artificial.

In your mind, perhaps.

You are truly boring.

Blah blah blah.

Yes, you said that. Big deal.
You did not offer anything concrete to determine when that occurs.

Yeah and all of that is subjectively determined by the man too.

The question was what my definition of ‘unnatural’ was.
I offered my definition.

This begins happening, once more, when the mind begins referencing its own inventions to ascertain reality.
It becomes a self-referential loop. The system is beginning to close itself off from the outside, from reality.

For instance when man references his own moralistic inventions concerning the sanctity of life and equality and justice so as to judge reality or to construct a future reality, or when a mind references the cultures he’s produced by meddling in natural ways, so as to determine their ‘purity’.

It’s like music sampling in RAP or art when it just imitates other art.
Te artist isn’t referencing nature but another’s perspective on nature.

Like when sophists reference other thinkers, instead of reality, and then pretend that they are thinking.

And?

An opinion is a perspective.
It’s objectivity is measured by how well it adheres to observable, shared, reality and how effective it is in explaining the phenomenon and predicting future occurrences of the phenomenon.

Go back four billion years and there is only the ‘environment’.

In our daily lives we are blind to the depths of time, space and energy and what is has made of us.

We are the environment come to life.

Through us the cosmos seeks its own transformation by creating a force which is greater than the sum total of natural forces alone - the human will…the will to power.

If we transgress boundaries it is certainly no more of a transgression than that which bought life into being in the first place.

Shouldn’t we accept the consequences of artifice in view of the above?

It depends into which direction it seeks to take us.

The competition is over which direction this will all take.

There is no thing that is not natural for everything comes from nature, even man.

Nature is a dynamic, always changing, always adapting.

It remains be seen if man can keep from being overwhelmed by the natural dynamo as the dinosaurs were.

We are not born biologically with ideals, inventions, or specific ontologies.

Birth symbolizes the biological beginning of person and therefore it also represents the natural.

If you cannot show men born with various dispositions you will inevitably be dealing with interventions,acquisitions, constructions and recollections.

You forget that a caterpillar is genetically born with the physical mutation of metamorphosis.

A person is not born with the mutation of idealisms, metaphysics or ontologies in their heads but rather it is placed within them by others.

If a person was born with such things there would be no use in having schools, the art of cultural transmission or that of institutions themselves.

How do you know the first idea was natural?

The first idea could have very well been the absurd idea of a god watching a man doing the first form of thought in the middle of a open field.

The first idea or thought could have easily been absurd in comparison to your natural idealization of it. :slight_smile: