Nature is a bitch?

[Agape]

The more I learn about Darwinism and evolution is the more contempt I have for the imperfection of 'nature'. Sure nothing is perfect and I also appreciate what a great feat it is to create life at all however I have just come to question the blind faith in nature that some people, myself included, have up to this point purported. People often blame everything on humans- we pollute, killl, etc etc etc. but we are only doing these things in the service of our survival and replication drives which have been passed down through the ages. So we are simply running our minds on old programs which are obsolete.

 

'Nature' seems to run in such a way that the most powerful and brutish survive out and the weak are trammeled out of existence.

 

Contempt is a bit strong but rather I am wondering that if holding nature as our 'God' or the highest beacon for 'how we should live' is the best idea as nature is clearly a bitch and has no regard for the wellbeing or fairness of humanity or other living creatures. It's not that it is against us but rather that it is indifferent.

 

Look at the brutality that happens in the plains of africa etc. the survival of the fittest mentality, law of the jungle. I see this nasty every man for himself ideal play out in human form in any big city. The bigger the city is the more ruthless and cutthroat humans seem to be. All creatures fighting tooth and nail for survival.

 

So I feel that it is a bit stupid to say that nature is all great and benevolent seeing as it has no regard for our wellbeing. And why should it? It is not a living entity. To paraphrase Camus we live in a universe which is indifferent to our existence.

 

I am not going to fall into exitential angst about this, I've spent most of my life n that rut , however I am just pointing out that- is holding nature as our highest moral standard bearer the best idea when it clearly has no regard for living creatures one way or the other. The best we can say is to 'go with the flow' and try and avoid it's negative effects. I think improvements on nature are to be made through human intellect. I think it's naiive and ignorant to say 'everything humans have created leads to pollution and crap and we should just go with nature' as nature doesn't care if we go with it or not. All illnesses and diseases are a product of nature. I think it's just a fatlist view to say that 'Everything that happens was meant to be this way, nature knows best'. I don't think nature knows anything it just does it's own thing and we popped up by chance (but let us not go down the creation line here).

 

Nature only rewards the most ruthless and powerful, survival of the fittest. I am becoming more and more sympathetic with humanitarian ideals. But humanitarian is a little narrow in scope as every living thing shares common bonds and we are not much dissimilar from our other non rational cousins, those who are also struggling in the plains of Africa. They too have to bear the brunt of natures hand.

 

So I think what would be more beneficial for prosperity on earth would not be to put nature at the top of the pile in regards to how to act morally but rather to ask what is best for all living creatures? If we were just to take the nature view we have pretty much what we have today Capitalism and stamping on one another to get to the top of the pile with no regard for one's fellow; only being slaves to our genes. I certainly do not think we should disregard this aspect, however to only view things this way leaves us ignoring the humanity of one another blindly being slaves to our dopamine receptors. So sure follow that as that is what makes us feel good but don't let it be the ONLY thing we are about as I think that is very short sighted and is pretty much the result of where we are at today.

 

Most of the western world I would hazard is the result of the desire for domination and progress at any cost. Now at the same time great technologies have arisen from this internet, medicine etc etc etc. These are great things but I think the focus should shift now or else we just become empty blind automatons as the corporate treadmill will attest. People say this empty materialism is the RESULT of human error but I feel it is only the result of humans acting out 'nature's way'. Being more conscious of our values and 'what is best for all of life' I believe is our primary duty as rational creatures not just following what antiquated patterns nature has set out up till now.

 

So I guess I'd say that capitalism is a natural human progression of dawinistic survival of the fittest but a shift in thinking should occur to take into account the fact that these same reward centers which have been conditioned form time immemorial do not take into account equality for other living creatures and thus are outmoded and should be replaced with new ideals given our shiny new rational minds. I once had a vision that humans were created (by chance or not, whatever) to be the guardians of the earth.

 

No matter of the cause of that vision I still think it was a good one in that I think as the only rational creatures it's our duty to find out not what is best just for our selfish needs as individuals but what is best for all living things.

 

Just a few thoughts I've been having.

[Marblehead]

Hi Agape,

 

Just a few thoughts I've been having.

 

I'm glad you got that off your chest.

 

You are right: Nature is a Bitch.

 

TTC, Chapter 5 (Henricks' translation):

 

1. Heaven and Earth are not humane;

2. They regard the ten thousand things as straw dogs.

3. The Sage is not humane;

4. He regards the common people as straw dogs.

 

Nature does what it needs do, nothing more, nothing less.

 

A Taoist should do what needs be done, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Nature still rules, IMO.

 

Happy Trails!

[Agape]

Hmm this is alot different from the 'pop' translation of TTC I have. Would you say that is the best translation overall? If so I'll look for it.

 

I just read this post: http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/mason34.htm

 

Which explains the 'tao' pretty well in his own words.

 

I am sure that nature is a bitch and doesn't care the question is whether or not I want to resist nature to create a better life for myself in the short term by for instance working to the best of my human capacity rather than just taking my lumps and being thrown around like a straw doll.

 

The question also arises whether using ones full rational capabilities also entails being natural. I suppose anything and everything you can imagine is 'natural' in the sense that everything comes from nature; from the tao.

 

So I suppose the issue which is really at hand is whether one uses their antiquated animal nature or their new shiny rational nature, not whether they go against nature as everything is in some sense natural. In this sense we can honour the old while accommodating it and improving on it with our new rational judgment.

 

I guess my qualms were more with irrational thinking then than with the unnatural as thinking is but another new adaptation of life.

[Marblehead]

Hi Agape,

 

Hmm this is alot different from the 'pop' translation of TTC I have. Would you say that is the best translation overall? If so I'll look for it.

 

I always recommend Henricks' translation. Even though there are a couple issues with the translation I still find it to be the best. The translation itself can be found here: http://terebess.hu/english/tao/henricks.html

 

This is just the translation without his notes, introduction and comments.

 

I just read this post: http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/mason34.htm

Which explains the 'tao' pretty well in his own words.

 

Yes, I would say that this is a good article and have no disagreements with it.

 

I am sure that nature is a bitch and doesn't care the question is whether or not I want to resist nature to create a better life for myself in the short term by for instance working to the best of my human capacity rather than just taking my lumps and being thrown around like a straw doll.

 

This then, is the 'big' question then, I think. And my answer would be that we should try to make things better for ourself and others. We can do this only by testing our capacities and capabilities. Then do the best we can with what we have. But still, Nature won't care one way or the other.

 

The question also arises whether using ones full rational capabilities also entails being natural. I suppose anything and everything you can imagine is 'natural' in the sense that everything comes from nature; from the tao.

 

I think that it would be unnatural to not use one's full rational (as well as all other) capabilities. (But then choosing to not do so would also be natural. Actually, there is no such thing as an unnatural event.)

 

So I suppose the issue which is really at hand is whether one uses their antiquated animal nature or their new shiny rational nature, not whether they go against nature as everything is in some sense natural. In this sense we can honour the old while accommodating it and improving on it with our new rational judgment.

 

We should use them all, I think. The instincts for survival, then the learned for compassion, sharing, etc.

 

I guess my qualms were more with irrational thinking then than with the unnatural as thinking is but another new adaptation of life.

 

Yes, irrational thinking is a problem we all have from time to time, I think.

 

But then, in the end, I still think it is wise to look at the processes of nature and try our best to live according to the processes. Yeah, we might cause a tornado now and then but maybe the area where our tornado hit needed to be cleared away anyhow.

 

Happy Trails!

[frp]

 

Agape,

 

I am interested in your thoughts about nature and our place in it. The way that the Tao explains nature is one of the most important tenants of this wonderful work.

 

Consider this...

 

A Tree bears fruit

The Fruit, though unripe, falls to the ground

The Fruit rots

 

 

This could be interpreted as a very base scenario of nature. The fruit did not accomplish. It came and went. Perhaps only providing some nutrients back to the very soil that provided the nutrients that originally allowed it to grow.

 

Should we expect to be more significant to the Tao or nature then this piece of rotten fruit?

 

 

frp

[Agape]

Well...

 

I take a rather individualistic approach to this...

 

If I follow your analogy assuming we are the fruit...

 

Then I say I want to ripen not for the Tao but for myself...

 

Why?

 

Because nature rewards the ripest fruit....

 

How?

 

Feel good chemicals.

 

In that way I guess nature is rewarding us like the good lab monkeys we are

 

The reason I want to fully actualize is simply because I feel depressed and can hardly bear living unless I am enjoying the fruits the world has to offer. If I rest on my laurels I feel like I am missing out and that I would rather be dead. This comes in thew form of deep frustration and depression.

 

I am not talking about chasing money or fame. I live by very humble means except one thing I do want is the most beautiful women to copulate with.

 

Now my life would be so simple if I didn't have this desire but I do and nature has it that it's very hard to get the 'cream of the crop' in this area as you are literally competing with every other sexually available male on the planet. To me sex is the pinnacle of life and so if I'm going to live life to the fullest (which = enjoy the most feel good chemicals) then this will be the best way to do it.

 

Why do I do it? Cos the reward feels great. If I could take drugs and feel as good I would but their downsides are too great such that the cost/benefit ratio is not worth it. The downside to this is that this goal is one of the most hard things to do in the world. Probably harder than earning money or fame.

 

I couldn't imagine living without this desire, at least not while I'm in my sexual prime. It is the bane of my life in some ways in that I hate being a slave to it but at the same time I could not see myself living without pursuing this goal until my libido drops and I lose the desire.

 

So I guess that was my main gripe with 'nature'; that I'm a slave to these desires and that it is so hard to fulfill them. Possible but extremely difficult.

 

I will not compromise with 'settling'. I take a Nietzschean view that I must keep improving my efforts and going for ever greater quarry, only because the rewards are exponentially greater, not for any romantic ideal of being 'the best'.

 

So for me my penchant would be sex. For others it is achievement or whatever. All the same it gives you that dopamine reward. As Neitzsche says- all life is the will to power.

 

So at once I admit this and go after it like a good lab monkey but am disgruntled that this is the way it is and thus am not calling nature the 'greatest' due to me thinking it a stupid 'paper chase' but have found it to be the only thing that makes life bearable.

 

The sad thing to me is that people such as Hitler would be the logical conclusion of this natural inclination to dominate and conquer for which 'nature' rewards us so highly.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Agape

[Trunk]

Looks like you've really been taking a good look at Darwinism and human behavior. I would only say that the eastern view of 'nature' also includes the subtle layers. That perspective widens the conversation considerably and makes it slightly more hopeful.

[Agape]

Looks like you've really been taking a good look at Darwinism and human behavior. I would only say that the eastern view of 'nature' also includes the subtle layers. That perspective widens the conversation considerably and makes it slightly more hopeful.

 

 

Maybe its does; but your reply doesn't make it more helpful by not elabourating what you mean!

 

What do you define as subtle layers? and how do they widen the conversation?

[Marblehead]

 

Agape,

 

I am interested in your thoughts about nature and our place in it. The way that the Tao explains nature is one of the most important tenants of this wonderful work.

 

Consider this...

 

A Tree bears fruit

The Fruit, though unripe, falls to the ground

The Fruit rots

This could be interpreted as a very base scenario of nature. The fruit did not accomplish. It came and went. Perhaps only providing some nutrients back to the very soil that provided the nutrients that originally allowed it to grow.

 

Should we expect to be more significant to the Tao or nature then this piece of rotten fruit?

frp

 

 

Wait, Please, Wait. You didn't finish the story. As the fruit rotted it provided nutrients, yes. And left as remains were the seeds for the next generation. A never-ending cycle. There is no end.

 

Happy Trails!

[Birch]

Only humans are "hopeful". I think

 

The reason to work with the bitch nature is to save ourselves because we are / have a part in/of it. And I say "bitch" in a most respectful manner.

 

Don't fall for the "Darwinist" ideas that some people have been wielding around for decades to justify their own (maybe suicidal) actions. Some of their goals are also political;-) Yes, great idea! Let's anchor our ideology in nature (or, failing that, God) and then we can do whatever we want as long as we can justify it above their heads! But they fail to recognize that we have the same head;-)

[Bum Grasshopper]

Life's a bitch, then you die.

 

Death is a bitch too.

[Marblehead]

Life's a bitch, then you die.

 

Death is a bitch too.

 

However, when we have the opportunity to dance we should dance.

 

Far too many people just sit on their behind when the music is playing. Dance! my brothers and sisters!

 

Happy Trails!

[Adj]

Good post and you stirred a string of passion in me. Thank you.

 

As for my response: Nature truly does not exist.

 

Grass exists, animals exists, an ecosystem exists. But nature does not exist. Nature is a concept for how things flow in the universe from one manifestation to the next. From cavemen to internet is indeed an effect of nature and flowing with it. And the destruction to our ecosystem, the air and water, is bringing about the next stage of nature where we focus on preserving it. And as an act of nature the universe is moving us to an era of conservation as witnessed with the development of more economical cars and alternative health care.

 

As our awareness (as a society) of how to keep a healthy body develops, as it is developing, we will move into a stage where having clean air, fresh water, and healthy food without chemicals is supreme.

 

Behold the massive growth of the WholeFoods corporation, an act of -nature-. There are no wholefoods or farmers markets or hybrid cars out in places where the nature of money is controlled (ie north Korea where people are -still- dieing from starvation).

 

Capitalism is the nature of money and how it will naturally flow. Resisting nature by trying to control it (ie socialism, communism, ect...) results in massive suffering. The millions of people who needlessly die for an ideal that fights against the laws of nature (how the universe flows). Can you imagine a whole foods market in Cuba?

 

The best thing we can do is embrace nature (like the WholeFoods corporation did with capitalism) and partake in its abundance and through AWARENESS that can guide our decisions to serve our health and our longevity(which fortunately requires a healthy ecosystem too).

 

At this moment everything is as it should be. Lets cease resisting it and move with it while bringing awareness into our lives.

[Marblehead]

Hi Adj,

 

Nice post. Yeah, you did get inspired to voice your thoughts.

 

I agree - there is no souch 'thing' as nature. What we call nature is a group of processes, each individual but totally connected so that a cause here will initiate an effect there.

 

From the first time I saw the word "Tzujan" defined I understood what you said above.

 

And I do agree with this very much:

 

At this moment everything is as it should be. Lets cease resisting it and move with it while bringing awareness into our lives.

 

Happy Trails!

[Martial Development]

Agape, You were raised to call your own mother a bitch?

 

Lucky for you she is indifferent.

[Tanemon]

TTC, Chapter 5 (Henricks' translation):

 

1. Heaven and Earth are not humane;

2. They regard the ten thousand things as straw dogs.

3. The Sage is not humane;

4. He regards the common people as straw dogs.

 

Nature does what it needs do, nothing more, nothing less.

 

A Taoist should do what needs be done, nothing more, nothing less.

Does this ("the sage is not humane") imply that the sage, then, cannot be a friend?

 

To me, "friend" or "friendship" implies trust. In living our lives day-to-day, a friend is someone you can trust. And, too, I associate the notion of "friend" with both knowing someone well and with mutuality - the available support of one person for the other. One person or the other (or both) may feel, much of the time, that he or she does not need support - but then, on occasion, probably each will feel that need.

 

This reciprocity, I'd say, is humane. Also, I believe that friendship and reciprocity occurs "naturally" among people - not that everybody is capable to being someone's friend (that capability seems to vary). But it's a human capacity, like the capacity to enjoy beauty or learn math. I've seen what I'd recognize as friendship even among animals.

 

Does Henrick's/Lao Tzu's lack of "humane"-ness just mean the sage is a pure elitist (and therefore regards most people as "straw dogs")?

[Nanashi]

Tanemon: I wouldn't call the Sage an elitist, but it is a lonely path.

[Marblehead]

Does this ("the sage is not humane") imply that the sage, then, cannot be a friend?

 

Does Henrick's/Lao Tzu's lack of "humane"-ness just mean the sage is a pure elitist (and therefore regards most people as "straw dogs")?

 

 

I agree with what you said in the middle part of your post.

 

I think those lines suggest that the sage treats all people equally. He can be friend to all. I think also that the Sage is one who a person could put complete trust in. But, on the other hand, the Sage would be very open in tell you that you are wrong if he/she feels you are so.

 

"Humaneness" in this case, to me means that he is just as natural as nature is. If he needs to take a leak - get out of the way!

 

And I doubt that he would spend much time trying to make friends with others. Friendship would occur naturally as a result of like-mindedness with others.

 

I don't know if I handled that well. If not, press me for additional comment, Okay?

 

Happy Trails!

[Agape]

To redirect a little from the current veering of the discussion being "If I met Lao Tzu would he want to be my tea drinking buddy" I thought of another facet of this...

 

If everything is natural under the Tao what does natural actually mean?

 

Everything is 'natural' to the Tao but is everything natural to us? What does that even mean?

 

I was thinking recently of the idea that what is classically considered 'natural' is only what people have known to be so traditionally. So in this sense tradition and nature could be swapped synonymously.

 

For instance we may consider science and pharmaceuticals 'unnatrual' but why? Just because they are new and haven't been around as long as mountains and rivers? Maybe in years to come they will consider these things as 'natural' as mountains and rivers? Is it a matter of degree? Are the mountains and rivers MORE natural than science and pharmaceuticals merely do to their preceding them?

 

If the tao is supremely indifferent then everything is as natural as everything else right?

 

For the human body however some things could be considered less natural, relatively, then others.

 

Drinking too much alcohol makes me feel distinctly poisoned and subsequently so for the next day or so. That I would consider to be unnatural.

 

Putting your hand in a fire might not be 'natural'...anything which disturbs your common equilibrium perhaps could be considered that which is unnatural.

 

Eating food is 'natural' but is it 'natural' to eat until you become an obese behemoth like many in the USA junk food culture? Will this archetype be natural once people accept it as the status quo?

 

So I'm just wondering what people's definitions of 'natural' are as we take it for granted alot of the time and I realised the question isn't so black and white.

 

I find it useful to know for times when I am considering how to act.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Agape

[Marblehead]

Hi Agape,

 

This, I think, is a difficult subject to discuss.

 

If we are acting naturally are we being true to our true nature? I suppose one would first have to ask, "What is man's true nature?" Well, wouldn't that include only our instincts? So if we want to be truely natural then we would have to discard all the things we have been taught and live only according to our instincts.

 

However, I don't think many of us would last very long. That is why we need to learn how to survive in the present. Watch out for that car! What's a car? Smash! I'm dead. No, we can't throw away all the stuff we have been taught. What we learn becomes a part of our nature.

 

Acting natural, I think, is a society label and is equal to acting normal. That is, normal for the society we live in. Societies differ and what is normal in one might be abnormal in another.

 

So as the human animal evolves his nature will evolve as well.

 

Of course, there is societies judgement as to whether one is being natural (normal) and there is the individual's judgement as to whether or not they are being natural. These sometimes conflict. But it doesn't necessarily make either one wrong.

 

So I like the idea that when one act naturally one will have no inner conflicts; they will be at peace with there Self. Of course, society might burn that person at a stake.

 

Happy Trails!

[River Gazer]

i cant read all this today.

 

Everything is random, including evolution.

Some scientists believe that the human evolved too smart for his own good.

Probly why dudes like me are enthralled by the neanderthal.

 

edit:

-------------

Lets see if i can add more.

 

Nature is how it is.

The human is how he is.

Therefore rises a question.

 

What is truth.

 

The human is of snow, smart, weak and overpopulated.

He is not particularly violent, but at the least he is detached from the rest of the world, nature.

He is a very lost creature.

 

We cannot help that we are born this way, but we spend out entire lives in fear. The pain of indoctrination, the pain of jealousy and greed, and most of all, the pain of fear.

Animals feel pain too, but i dare say not nearly as much. Their world is more brutal, but not nearly as painful.

Remind you of anyone?

 

A yuppie and I both take a 9x19mm standard pressure medium-heavy grain load to the liver.

Clearly one will feel more than another.

 

I feel little pain, and feel little fear of death, and I still walk the path of emancipation of this.

 

Solutions are always so much more complicated.

Edited September 7, 2009 by River Gazer

[Marblehead]

Therefore rises a question.

 

What is truth.

 

You're not expecting an end-all-further-questions answers here, are you?

 

Happy Trails!