*I'm reposting this from another forum I'm active at. It's not because I'm lazy, but because I'd like to see different perspectives on this.

I've been fidgeting with this puzzle for some time now...

We usually refer to human-made things as "artificial" and to those things outside our man-made world as "natural".
But are not all things a part of nature?
Wouldn't true naturalism be seeing nature as encompassing everything and seeing everything as part of an all-encompassing natural world?

How is a steel-and-concrete skyscraper less "natural" than a bird nest?
How is a plastic bag "less natural" than a spider's web?

By putting up the terms "natural" and "unnatural", are we not simply referring to our own (immature) attempt to view ourselves as separate from our surroundings?

That's exactly what happens with psychic phenomena. People label it "supernatural" and forget, "hey, maybe it's something natural we just don't dominate... yet".

Well, my pov is on the front page of the web site... I think linear logic crops up from something else entirely different from what we have on this planet naturally...

I think psychic phenomenon are probably natural too Manu.

all things are not natural, there is
one thing that is not.

.................... Which is...?

George Lucas. Word.

I can see the point that is being made here ... however, another way to look at it could be that "natural" things tend to live in harmony or in some cyclical fashion with their environment / surroundings whereas artificial human influenced things tend to live at odds with their environment and in fact use everything up like a disease.

It's anabolic and catabolic, nature is conscious and has away of removing a species which becomes too destructive to live, too tied into the catabolic forces of nature. What happens to a species that poisions it's drinking water, it's food, its air and it's own minds and lands. Turns it's forests into concert jungles.etc They don't last, they are removed from life by their own collective karma.

The punishment of nature for going against the very laws that give life is to be removed by them.

Aryas is right, again.

Lord Rive said once that the Force was only counterbalanced
by its own actions.

Like torrents counterbalancing torrents.

Well done Aryas.

darkness

If something exists, then it does, which makes it part of the natural cycle by default. Trying to categorize things into "Valid" & "Non-Valid" existence is a solid waste of time & frankly, illogical.

strong language, my young master.

unless i am wrong, your discussion was about
what is natural and unnatural, not about
natural cycles or the existence of such cycles.

something natural is something existing in or
in conformity with nature or the observable world;
neither supernatural nor magical.

it is something in accordance with nature;
relating to or concerning nature.

nature involves the natural physical world
including plants and animals and landscapes etc.

nature is also a causal agent creating and
controlling things in the universe.

darkness is supernatural.

the supernatural is something not existing
in nature or subject to explanation according
to natural laws; not physical or material.

young master, darkness itself is neither
dark matter nor is it dark energy.

darkness itself cannot be defined in what
it is, only in what it is not.

darkness exists, but is not subject to
any laws (real or unreal).

darkness is above and beyond nature.

You mean the void. I don't like slapping the "darkness" label on that. When you do that, it confuses the hell out of people. However, the void is just as much a part of nature & it's cycles as anything else. It's an unknown quantity though, thus the name.

Darkness isn't natural?
Void isn't natural?

When they occur, isn't that always bound to natural law?

I'm guessing we're having different definitions of "nature" here...

Your limitation of "nature" to these very specific things is exactly the point I was touching upon in my post. "Nature" and natural law is everywhere and includes everything. There is darkness in nature... there's void in nature... In fact you might not be wrong to suggest that darkness and void are nature's baseline form (nature in an absence of energy or matter). There's no "supernatural" either, except what's supernatural to our understanding.

Actually, both Aryas and Lionheart touched on the subject of natural cycles, which I suddenly think is very relevant. If we define "natural" as "adaptable to the natural flow" (and so sustainable) vs. "unnatural" as "contra natural flow" (thus on the way to extinction) - then I think we arrive at a good understanding of why some things are "natural" and others are not.

I never claimed the void wasn't natural. I was simply giving it the proper name instead of leaving it labeled as "darkness."