Is there a Purpose in Nature?

[Marblehead]

In this case, purpose is being defined from a human point of view. Anthropocentrism has dominated religious discourse for centuries.

 

Yes, we need be careful with our 'human point of view'.

 

The universe apparently did very well for 13.65 billion years before humans came on the scene. I think it is a bit vain to suggest that we know what is going on and why.

 

Yeah, we can look at the manifest and state our understandings and opinions about the manifest we have known. It has been suggested that 'modern man' has been around for only 10,000 years. We may not know as much as we think we know.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

The universe apparently did very well for 13.65 billion years before humans came on the scene. I think it is a bit vain to suggest that we know what is going on and why.

 

 

Asking the unanswerable question, then, why did humans show up on the scene?

[Marblehead]

The purpose of Nature and everything within Nature is survival, anything more is just a construct of mental conditioning.

 

Aaron

 

You got pretty close to pinning the tail on the donkey there Aaron.

[stan herman]

Do you really believe that you can understand God's intentions?

That means that your level of awareness and intelligence are on par with God.

Is that what you are telling us?

If there is a purpose in the universe in the sense you describe, what makes you think that our feeble human intelligence could fathom what that would look like?

 

Purpose and meaning are creations of human thought.

They are born of desire.

You can recognize purpose in the universe if you project your desires onto it.

It's very simple.

This is just another example of how you create God in your image.

 

I'm in general agreement with the message here. The individual person, even the mass of them called 'humanity', are just too limited in perspectives--time, matter, intelligence, imagination and more--to ascertain the purpose of so great a system as God. It's been said that God works in mysterious ways--how could it be otherwise. Purpose supposes intentionality. Intentionality assumes mechanism. How can humans even conceptualize any intentions or methods beyond those in which they themselves are immersed?

[Immortal4life]

It's been said that God works in mysterious ways--how could it be otherwise. Purpose supposes intentionality. Intentionality assumes mechanism. How can humans even conceptualize any intentions or methods beyond those in which they themselves are immersed?

 

The "part" of reality that humans are immersed in as you say, is still "part" of the whole, "part" of the bigger picture.

 

By understanding a part, you can expand on that part and conceptualize something closer to the whole. In a similar way to how examination of a single drop of water can tell you many things about the whole lake it came from.

 

At one time people couldn't conceptualize the idea of galaxies, solar systems, atoms, or the universe. Now people can conceptualize much more than they could in the past.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Immortal4life

[steve]

 

At one time people couldn't conceptualize the idea of galaxies, solar systems, atoms, or the universe. Now people can conceptualize much more than they could in the past.

Rant on....

 

 

Yes, and in those times people were still able to exploit the power of religion by ascribing their selfish desires, religious, and political ambition to the will of God. And people do it today, every chance they get. Let's assume for a moment that there is a higher purpose in the universe and that humanity can reckon it. Who determines what God's will is? You? Me? Fred Phelps? Reverend Falwell? George Bush? Ahmadinejad? The pope? Trunk? Manitou? (I nominate Manitou) Who is to judge who is correct? Who among humanity will speak for God? Should we vote on that?

 

What about the religious? These are the very opportunists who have propagated the majority of atrocities in history in the name of knowing God's purpose. Look at the world around you, do you see psychological and spiritual maturity? In the states, where we are more concerned with homosexual marriage than with compassion and meaningful environmental and health care reform? In the Middle East? In China? The Catholic Church? The Dalai Lama? Who will be God's messenger on Earth?

 

Every religion on Earth, even the Buddhists who don't "believe in God" agree that "God's message" is love, compassion, and charity.

How has that helped us?

Don't worry so much about what is in God's mind but what is in peoples' hearts.

That is where our suffering comes from and that is where it can end.

You will never be able to convince more than a handful of people to believe in your personal idol, ideology, or religion and its particular choice of words to communicate that message. And if you can, what about everyone else?

But you just might be able to convince most people to look into their own hearts and find those qualities because we all share them inside. .

 

So I'm not at all concerned about God's purpose.

And yet here I am, manifesting it in my every action.

Wu Wei

 

Sorry for the rant...

Off....

Have a nice day

[Immortal4life]

What I'm really saying is there is not actually a need to say "I can't know anything when you take it to a high enough level and I should just give up on ideas like identifying or understanding things like Purpose in the Universe".

[Immortal4life]

I think humans have a different purpose than other animals. I suppose each animal might have it's own pupose, like bees pollinate the plants. Really, if you look at humans from any other animals perspective, we're like SPIRITS, forces of nature which can take any physical thing in existence and CHANGE it to make it do something else. To other animals, we are like the weirdest things in nature since we go around taking pieces of the environment and reforming EVERYTHING around us.

 

As the Native Americans say, we are the caretakers of the earth. If you look at the beauty in that, it's quite awesome. We are (supposed to be) like these benevolent beings that walk around making plants grow here, fixing water currents there, and creating the environment that is needed for our survival.

 

In many cases the environment doesn't need to be changed for our survival, but we as humans have a very unique role.

 

On the other hand, I think that animals probably see humans as having this higher role, but at the same time we are ignorant of a lot of things which can be learned from animals attunement to nature. This is not to say that "Dogs have the Buddha nature" since other animals do not have the same opportunity to conquer passions (not inspiration, but lust, greed, selfishness).

 

I like this. It is indeed true that Nature is a very intricate and complex balance.

 

I found this conversation interesting

 

This Documentary illustrates the balance of Nature well-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4844687588840076520#

Edited June 21, 2011 by Immortal4life

[steve]

I think humans have a different purpose than other animals. I suppose each animal might have it's own pupose, like bees pollinate the plants. Really, if you look at humans from any other animals perspective, we're like SPIRITS, forces of nature which can take any physical thing in existence and CHANGE it to make it do something else. To other animals, we are like the weirdest things in nature since we go around taking pieces of the environment and reforming EVERYTHING around us.

 

As the Native Americans say, we are the caretakers of the earth. If you look at the beauty in that, it's quite awesome. We are (supposed to be) like these benevolent beings that walk around making plants grow here, fixing water currents there, and creating the environment that is needed for our survival.

 

In many cases the environment doesn't need to be changed for our survival, but we as humans have a very unique role.

 

On the other hand, I think that animals probably see humans as having this higher role, but at the same time we are ignorant of a lot of things which can be learned from animals attunement to nature. This is not to say that "Dogs have the Buddha nature" since other animals do not have the same opportunity to conquer passions (not inspiration, but lust, greed, selfishness).

I have a different view. I see humans as animals that were blessed with or evolved this amazing tool called intelligence.

And it has allowed us to change the earth to a certain degree to allow us to nearly choke off the existence of all other naturally occurring life. And eventually, unless we mature psychologically and emotionally, it will cause the earth to no longer be as fit for us to thrive and we will go away. The Native Americans you refer to (and most indigenous peoples) have already fallen victim to this. We are way out of balance and maintain our dominance through technology which is fragile and limited. We are very far out of touch with nature.

[zerostao]

for sure humans are animals, in the mammals, in the primates.

i generally liked Harmonious Emptiness post, but

" since other animals do not have the same opportunity to conquer passions (not inspiration, but lust, greed, selfishness)."

here i differ in opinion and observation.

i do see many animals dealing with greed, selfishness, lust, jealosy, agression.i have seen some animals overcome these. ("you can observe alot just by watching" yogi berra )

 

ah, the inconceivable nature of nature

 

@ steve f, are you saying the native american and other indigenous peoples

fell victim to the earth not being suitable for them or they fell victim to other peoples with higher technology?

Edited June 21, 2011 by zerostao

[steve]

@ steve f, are you saying the native american and other indigenous peoples

fell victim to the earth not being suitable for them or they fell victim to other peoples with higher technology?

I guess on the surface I would say they fell victim to other peoples with higher technology.

However, if we think about The Empty Boat, what are these folks with higher technology other than the hand of the universe?

 

I can't figure it out.

 

If humanity commits genocide how can it not be the intent of the universe?

What the hell is going on here?

It's just one of those things, I guess.

[Marblehead]

I guess on the surface I would say they fell victim to other peoples with higher technology.

However, if we think about The Empty Boat, what are these folks with higher technology other than the hand of the universe?

 

I can't figure it out.

 

If humanity commits genocide how can it not be the intent of the universe?

What the hell is going on here?

It's just one of those things, I guess.

 

But let us not forget that we all have the freedom to choose between doing good or doing evil.

 

Nature is beyond good and evil. If we suggest that humans, being a part of nature, are beyond good and evil as well I fear we might have to accept genocide as simply a matter of fact and personally, I wouldn't like doing that.

[Immortal4life]

I have seen animals control their passions, but I have not seen them conquer or eliminate them.

 

Human beings are different than the animals in the sense that humans can separate from Nature, they can choose to act in ways not natural to their own nature. They can choose to act in ways other than their purpose and place in nature would dictate.

 

When you start talking about one "race" eliminating another "race", it begins to sound like Colonialism, Social Darwinism, and Evolutionism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok32-Xvo2tk

Edited June 21, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Marblehead]

 

When you start talking about one "race" eliminating another "race", it begins to sound like Colonialism, Social Darwinism, and Evolutionism.

 

Maybe a better example going back a few years before Darwin would be the Christians killing Moslems and the Moslems killing Christians, each hoping to totally destroy the other.

 

And still the Jews are not allow to exist!

 

Edit to add:

 

PS You knew I wasn't going to let you get away with that, didn't you? Hehehe.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Marblehead

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I have seen animals control their passions, but I have not seen them conquer or eliminate them.

 

Human beings are different than the animals in the sense that humans can separate from Nature, they can choose to act in ways not natural to their own nature. They can choose to act in ways other than their purpose and place in nature would dictate.

 

When you start talking about one "race" eliminating another "race", it begins to sound like Colonialism, Social Darwinism, and Evolutionism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok32-Xvo2tk

 

Well, that's pretty much it. Humans have the capacity to rise beyond the survival instinct, however, we don't always do so.

 

Don't even get me started on Darwin... his theories were totally absurd given the fact that he did not seem to know the ancient Egyptians were black Africans, and everything civilization has derived as a result of Egypt being the cultural center of the world for the first 3000+ years. Europeans didn't even know that bathing was important until about 1900 . I am of European descent, btw.

 

 

edit: oh, and thanks for the vids. I'll have to watch the longer one later.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[zerostao]

quote name='Immortal4life' date='21 June 2011 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1308685199' post='267841']

I have seen animals control their passions, but I have not seen them conquer or eliminate them.

 

so , this is your observation only. and considering the rest of your post i am

curious about your use of the words conquer and eliminate.

 

and here you say;

 

Human beings are different than the animals in the sense that humans can separate from Nature, they can choose to act in ways not natural to their own nature. They can choose to act in ways other than their purpose and place in nature would dictate.

 

i still stand by my : human beings ARE animals not different than. so you must be saying that ALL other animals except human beings act in the same way? if this is your

idea, i will suggest that other animals do possess brains and have a capability to think and to choose.

 

then this;

When you start talking about one "race" eliminating another "race", it begins to sound like Colonialism, Social Darwinism, and Evolutionism.

 

can you explain how you equate evolution with genocide?

[Immortal4life]

posted this in another thread a while back-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59qpfSPI9mM

[strawdog65]

But let us not forget that we all have the freedom to choose between doing good or doing evil.

 

Nature is beyond good and evil. If we suggest that humans, being a part of nature, are beyond good and evil as well I fear we might have to accept genocide as simply a matter of fact and personally, I wouldn't like doing that.

 

Hi Marblehead!

 

You cut to the quick.

 

Mankind is an animal, yes. A very devious, irrational, emotionally

handicapped animal. I doubt that there is any known survival instinct

that qualifies planned, orchestrated genocide as a means of staying on top.

 

I think it's the very fact that we have these big brains and so little control

of our emotions that harbor the hate that brings forth ideas like genocide.

 

I will take issue with good and evil being actual and real, in the sense that they

are perceived in regards to animals. Good and evil are only preconceptions of what

our brains tell us to be acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Which of course goes

hand in hand with the belief in a god and a moral code of ethics.

 

In regards to the Tao, the sage acts when necessary. And his actions supposedly

flow with the situation, to assure his survival. I do not think that there would

be an inflexible moral code to go along with this thinking.

 

With that said...

It is still up to us to live within our own conventions of what is acceptable

behavior in our everyday lives. Big brains, hot emotions, and many choices to make.

 

Choose wisely....

[Marblehead]

Choose wisely....

 

What a great post!

 

I'm not even going to build on it as you have said what you did so well.

[zerostao]

Choose wisely > led me to a random thought

 

with the freedom to choose , as we all have that , every choice is

an opportunity to select the best possible outcome , the one that

would make us the happiest .

more choices would lead to more happiness, right?

or do we find the opposite to be true?

as choices increase, does anxiety also increase?

 

we do have the freedom to choose, right?

[ChiDragon]

Nature has no purpose because it is natural with the balance of the Yin and Yang. As far as the Tao Te Ching was concern, Heaven, Earth, Human, and Tao are four separate entities. Human was caught in between Heaven, earth and Tao. According to LaoTze, human is not part of Nature because human has to cope with Nature all the time by following the principles of Heaven, Earth, and Tao. Human are straw dogs as LaoTze putted.

 

All animals are part of Nature because their physical protection are provide by Nature from adverse weather conditions but humans are not. Human has to deal with animals to survive. Thus that was considered to be dealing with Nature in a philosophical sense which isolates human from Nature. From the Nature's point of view, Nature has no purpose. However, from the human's point of view, the purpose of Nature is for the survival of human.

Edited June 23, 2011 by ChiDragon

[stan herman]

I guess on the surface I would say they fell victim to other peoples with higher technology.

However, if we think about The Empty Boat, what are these folks with higher technology other than the hand of the universe?

 

I can't figure it out.

 

If humanity commits genocide how can it not be the intent of the universe?

What the hell is going on here?

It's just one of those things, I guess.

 

One thing I notice, in the entire string of this conversation there seems to be an underlying assumption of the primacy of 'humanity'--and an unexpressed , unexamined belief that God/the universe/the Big System really cares about humanity in its current form. Seems to me both assumptions are questionable. For instances, the present human is highly unlikely to be the epitome of evolution--even for the foreseeable future some cyborg variation seems just over the horizon (given the course of global pollution). And beyond that stage, perhaps a less material version of 'consciousness container'? Like it or not, seems to me, we're just another stage in an onward march.

[Marblehead]

Choose wisely > led me to a random thought

 

with the freedom to choose , as we all have that , every choice is

an opportunity to select the best possible outcome , the one that

would make us the happiest .

more choices would lead to more happiness, right?

or do we find the opposite to be true?

as choices increase, does anxiety also increase?

 

we do have the freedom to choose, right?

 

Hehehe. Almost seem paradoxical, doesn't it?

 

I think that as long as we don't play the "What if?" game we will be okay with our choices if they were made with a rational mind. (That excludes anything a man does concerning his relationship with a woman. Hehehe.)

[Vajrahridaya]

I would say the purpose of nature is merely change, and that's it. Transformation. You make of it what you will. Your personal interpretation of the fact of change is yours alone to do.

[Aaron]

Hello Folks,

 

As I mentioned before, everything in nature has one purpose and that is to survive. What I see here is that people are applying human qualities to nature that aren't there. Nature works because environments have developed into specific ecosystems. Ecosystems vary, but the ones that thrive, do so because there is a hierarchy present that allows the animals and plants within that ecosystem to coexist in a beneficial manner. An example is that certain species hunt others, keeping them from overpopulation, while others may actually help certain plants to flourish by spreading pollen or seeds. Even this practical explanation doesn't really explain the purpose of nature, because it's purpose isn't really a purpose at all, so instead I would say that the question that needs to be asked is what is the nature of nature? What is the natural state of nature and where does man exist within that state?

 

Aaron