The man or woman who is capable of doing either does not exist, and never will exist. To explain either has an important implication - our minds are big enough to process the information required to contain the 'explanation', either way.
Given that 'nature' is directly derived from the Greek word that also serves as the root for the word 'physics', this thread captures neatly the conundrum.
The fact, now, is plain ... all persons posting to and reading this thread exist on one sphere-like thing we call Earth. And we are sharing this place, with no option to go somewhere else while we share in this experience we call 'life'.
So, answering all the questions in this thread will never be possible ... so what questions should be asked that can be answered?
What is love? What is non-love?
I can answer this: God is love, and we have been loved by him. And we are purposed to love.
And here's a really good question: what is the ratio of threads regarding science/rationalism/evolution to threads regarding 'How Freeper 'fill in the blank' learned the art of love'?
I assure you, the problem is this ... whatever that ratio happens to be, that ratio should be inversed. And that will begin to happen when the art, the image of such love, is imagined in the mind of man. Once that step is taken, learning this art will grow.
Hint: text of any kind is not an image ... it is, at best, a clumsy interface between two images.
When Christ lived, he lived out a preset imagination that existed before his Life was lived here roughly 2000 years ago. His life was then captured in text.
Here, thus, is the problem - we are to translate that text to imagination in us, NOW.
And then that art becomes the image other men and women can 'see'.
My trust in this understanding did NOT begin with the text ... it began with a ordinary man who lived the image; my trust grew irresistably.
Afterwards, the trust grew to the Word, this man kept referring to.
I don't see this man anymore ... but, his afterimage has stayed with me. And the image of text is now within me.
The exclusive rationalist doesn't get this part ... because his imagination is delimited by default. He or she is deeply misfortunate, because he/she has not yet been ushered into into the presence of a man or woman who builds trust.
. I pray that God change how infrequent these images come to life, here and now, and make this more commonplace.
And what is non-Love? The refusal to ask, and answer, the question "What is Love?"
Finally ... bear in mind the original meaning in English of the word "physic". It meant that item used by physicians to purge someone of what ailed them. Physicians originally were great at those things which helped others purge bad things within themselves.
Castor oil, for example, was a common physic, and still is... and far too many Freepers are not drinking the dose of Castor oil designed for the mind that is available to them. But much, much worse, is that far too many physicians don't remember how to use Castor Oil anymore. I, for one, am working on this...clumsily .... but I am.
I have a degree in Physics. Maybe that makes me a scientist, but they never taught us in physics school what physics is. They said ‘do this math’ and ‘measure these quantities’ and you will be doing physics. Fine, I can do physics, but what is it aside from it used to be nature. Then maybe we can talk about these other things.
All very profound, and very valid, in so far as my poor philosophical abilities permit me to comprehend. But I was seeking a very much simpler and more mundane point. This being that, what ever else we may be, we are all creatures of nature.
For some reason, some people, when they contemplate 'nature,' tend to exclude humans from the equation, as though we are outside of, and in opposition to, nature. I suspect that many of these people don't exclude all humans from nature - just humans of European stock. Why is that do you suppose?
Thank you so much for saying so, gobucks! The thread, “What Is Life/Non-Life in Nature?” was trying to capture that “conundrum,” or at least to make some of its components visible.
One respondent complained, however, that I hadn’t answered the title question. Part of the point of the piece is that the title question is unanswerable by observers orientated to and conditioned by four-dimensional space-time experience, using empirical methods. At least that seems to be the bottom line as far as I can tell, FWIW. And anyhoot, it’s none of my business to tell anybody what to think about anything. My job is to point, to say, “Go look — if you’re really interested in seeing something interesting on a question of evident interest to you.” :^)
Indeed the Greek (Koine) word for “nature” is physis, which as you noted is the etymological root of the word “physics,” denoting a scientific discipline.
Nowadays, the word “nature” is ordinarily understood as “the order, disposition, and essence of all entities composing the physical universe.” That is to say, “nature” is, at bottom, a collective term. It’s likely the Greeks saw this too; but for them, the word physis also carried the additional sense: The particular entities that compose the physical universe, each and all of them, have a particular, “nature” — that is, a sort of original, innate “blueprint” peculiar to them that persists in time, which “selects for” and “determines” (or guides) “the nature of the beast” (i.e., the physical specification for the living entity).
For “certain Greeks,” at least, “nature” carries a double meaning: It refers to the order, disposition, and essence of particular living entities, as well the order, disposition, and essence of the total collection of the physical universe. It is the “nature” of particular entities (including the Kosmos itself) that allows us to meaningfully classify them.
Notice how at odds with Darwin’s theory of evolution this understanding of “nature” is. I merely note this in passing, and will not belabor the point further here.
Here my thoughts turn to something YHAOS wrote:
For some reason, some people, when they contemplate ‘nature,’ tend to exclude humans from the equation, as though we are outside of, and in opposition to, nature.gobucks, this seems to get us back to the question whether a human being has to make a choice between being (1) a creature of God; or (2) a creature of “pristine nature.”
So back to the great Greeks once again. From Plato one can discern the idea that “nature” can be understood as the relation that subsists between psyche (body) and soma (spirit, or soul): All entities in “nature” — inorganic, organic, and especially living ones in high degree — are a dynamic relation of “body” and “spirit/soul.” These “poles” specify a “living” tension that defines natural entities according to how they are disposed in favor of one pole over the other, and in what degree. Not surprisingly, on Plato’s model, man comes out “top of the heap,” with respect to biological, as well as inorganic basis.
Here’s a relevant, humble analogy, from my dear brother in Christ, hosepipe: His donkey/rider metaphor. The donkey, of course, is the physical body; and the rider is, of course, the soul/spirit. The idea here is that donkeys can be very unruly; but if that is the case, the rider always has the option of dismounting the donkey and just walking away.
Okay. Then what?
If the Greeks are right, and the psyche–soma model is valid, then dismounting the donkey would be a defection from the “natural.” Only man could have thunk such a thing possible in the first place….
Meanwhile, Darwin’s theory continues its eerie silence WRT the “problem” of man in nature….
In conclusion, I figure I am a “natural” person, a soul incarnated in matter such that I have a physical body. WRT where I was before my conception, and where I will be after my death, I do not have direct information. But if rider and donkey are truly separable in some fashion, then problems of pre- and post-existence inevitably will arise….
Anyhoot, AFAIC, my existence in this world as a physical body depends on the well-functioning synergy of the two principles. This is not an “either/or” situation here. This is testimony to the great fundamental complementarities that guide a universe that is primed for Life, and according to Genesis, primed especially for us humans.…
I also recognize that the “I” of me, my soul or spirit, does not finally depend on how it happens to incarnate materially. It is the gift I have from my Father, from the Beginning, according to His Logos, Alpha and Omega, Son of God, in the power of His Holy Spirit.
All praise and glory be to God Almighty, our Father which art in Heaven!