daniel (w) on (non) natural

Learning to see nature everywhere – aug 2017 – by daniel wahl – [https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/learning-to-see-nature-everywhere-44e2ff452b37]

after daniel (w) on regen & self org and 3 responses (daniel (w) on eyes of world, daniel (w) on complexity, and daniel (w) on whales).. i started to dm:

i did listen.. and am reading links you sent before i respond.. thank you

quoting him: ‘are you saying we are *not emergent properties of the dynamic nested complexity of life as a planetary process? … and I don’t get your **reference to whales … fyi I studied marine mammals in the wild ***not in captivity and that’s 30 yrs ago’

*just saying not in an undisturbed ecosystem.. so not ‘emerging‘ naturally **originated from carol black quote that i’ve called black science of people/whales law.. her direct quote ‘collecting data on human learning based on children’s behavior in school is like collecting data on killer whales based on their behavior at Sea World.‘ ***yeah.. so i guess i’m being that ridiculous.. to say .. (to me) nothing to date has legit been in the wild.. (to me) all the ecosystem is to some degree disturbed.. from people who truly believe they are free/natural.. to scientists with very clean/appropriate labs.. to whales in the wild.. we’ve already disturbed the natural emergence in all the spaces..

his 1st response (2nd response here: daniel (w) on tech):

I am with Goether on that one, the entire natural “non-natural” debate is an aberration of narrative that *results from the Cartesian split. We are all part od the dynamic bio-physical totality that shows up as cosmos, biosphere and us. All our technology is also natural, just most likely highly maladaptive

perhaps.. but not what i’m talking about.. i totally believe everything is interconnected.. just believe we’re disturbed as in missing pieces

notes/quotes from 6 min read link:

goethe quote:

NATURE! We are surrounded and embraced by her: powerless to separate ourselves from her, and powerless to penetrate beyond her. […] We live in her midst and know her not. She is incessantly speaking to us, but betrays not her secret. We constantly act upon her, and yet have no power over her. […] She has always thought and always thinks; though not as a man, but as Nature. […] That which is most unnatural is still Nature; the stupidest philistinism has a touch of her genius. Who so cannot see her everywhere, sees her nowhere rightly. […] The spectacle of Nature is always new, for she is always renewing the spectators. Life is her most exquisite invention; and death is her expert contrivance to get plenty of life. […] We obey her laws even when we rebel against them; we work with her even when we desire to work against her. […] She has isolated all things in order that all may approach one another. She holds a couple of draughts from the cup of love to be fair payment for the pains of a lifetime. […] She is complete, but never finished. — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in T.H. Huxley (1869)

agree.. but doesn’t mean nature hasn’t been disturbed.. that’s what i’m calling non legit..

*What would it mean to see nature everywhere? This is not a simple question of semantics. Our world would change, if we began to understand culture, society and technology as expressions of the same creative natural process that helped to create the atmosphere we breathe today and shaped the history of our planet for millions of years. It is quite a challenge to entertain this shift in perspective. **If everything is nature, then nothing is un-natural, artificial or not part of natural process.

*i see this as.. that’s why am saying even ‘whales in the wild’ have been disturbed..

**i don’t see this.. to me not a natural process.. maybe i see what you’re saying.. natural process against harms? but ie: (to me) bruce alexander‘s experiment shows that mice being addicted to heroin is not a natural process.. (unless you say because they have to to cope or that that’s all that’s offered.. but to mean.. then not an undisturbed ecosystem).. that it has to do with the limitations of the cage (closed system.. and i’d say natural living organisms are about open systems)

I am not at all suggesting that because — from this perspective — nuclear bombs and GM crops are natural too, that they are expressions of appropriate participation in nature’s life-sustaining and regenerative processes. They are better understood as dead- ends in nature’s evolutionary exploration of novelty. It is up to us to recognize them as such and dismiss them as inappropriate before their effects on life and whole-systems health dismiss us.

ok.. so to that.. maybe i’m referring to dead ends (in your terminology) rather than non legit.. non natural.. but because i believe in that interconnectedness.. and see that deep ness.. i believe we need a means to re\set.. otherwise like wack a mole.. and we just keep perpetuating dead ends..

This step towards fully embodying our own nature as ‘nature at large’ is crucial for cultural transformation towards a regenerative culture. To move on from the dominance of the ‘narrative of separation’ and into the ‘narrative of interbeing’ we have to heal the ‘Cartesian split’, embracing our experience of being separate individuals not as proof of separation but of being undividable from the wholeness of nature.

i don’t believe in separation or advocate.. cartesian split et al.. at all

From this inclusive and participatory perspective of nature we can re-evaluate all our social and technological achievements in the light of the crucial questions:

How does this innovation affect nature’s life support systems?

Does this innovation increase systemic health and resilience?

Is the proposed ‘solution’ likely to lead to an evolutionary dead-end or does it create conditions conducive to life?

yeah.. that’s what i’m all about.. a nother way that (in your terminology) doesn’t lead to dead end cycling .. that creates conditions conducive to life