The Natural State

catalog

Well-known member
definitely. this is the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle. version felt it, thats why he made the thread. luka voted no, but really he needs to get past it and go for it. they both do. it will be the crossover element
 

catalog

Well-known member
i seriously do think that this is what has delayed the 4th summer of love. you wanna get committed boss
 
if its trivial it can hardly be other than indisputable, and therefore what's natural is everything and the distinction is nonexistent and not ideological at all.

if, on the other hand, the distinction is ideological then what's natural for humans is not trivial - it's a meaningful question about which one can disagree
Agree. if we define ourselves by what we exclude. Asking someone what they think is unnatural will tell you a lot about them, so chucking in ‘everything is nature’ is a useful way to get a feel for how ideology shapes reality, because you’re dealing with a kind of absolute rather than competing versions of what the world should be.

But yes it’s obviously a very meaningful distinction. It seems Fundamental to how we navigate the world, it is true that we can’t ever really get over it, we can make the move In the abstract but we can’t fully live it. apart from the enlightened ones
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
youve only been once yourself cos your wife peer pressured you into it!
 

vimothy

yurp
Agree. if we define ourselves by what we exclude. Asking someone what they think is unnatural will tell you a lot about them, so chucking in ‘everything is nature’ is a useful way to get a feel for how ideology shapes reality, because you’re dealing with a kind of absolute rather than competing versions of what the world should be.

But yes it’s obviously a very meaningful distinction. It seems Fundamental to how we navigate the world, it is true that we can’t ever really get over it, we can make the move In the abstract but we can’t fully live it. apart from the enlightened ones
that's what I was trying to get at in my first couple of comments. it's not about whether something exists "in nature". it's about whether it's congruent to (a particular vision of) what it means to be human. it's always ultimately a normative statement, so can't be dismissed merely by listing counterexamples.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
i was loving this thread this morning as i drank my coffee and my brain was fizzing now i dunno what on earth its about. totally baffled and lost in the sludge.
 

vimothy

yurp
basically it's not unreasonable to say things like, "it's more natural for ppl to live in the countryside than the city". it's not necessarily true (or false), and it might be a cliche or whatever, but it's not a meaningless or incoherent claim
 

HMGovt

Bamber Clatscoigne
Of course! Why do science at all when you can learn all there is to learn by living on steak and doing drugs? 🤯
I've "done science" for longer than you've been alive and come through the other side. Most 21st century science is utterly corrupt and compromised.

Steak and drugs is an excellent prescription though, I'd only add to that plenty of seafood and some fermented foods.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
I've "done science" for longer than you've been alive and come through the other side. Most 21st century science is utterly corrupt and compromised.
You're a run-of-the-mill right-wing crank, part of a constellation of foolishness encompassing creationists, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, bell-curve racists, climate denialists, free-energy crackpots and many others. Although at least some of them have the quasi-excuse of being religious fundamentalists or in the pay of petrochem companies.
 
Top