![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Nature and Artifice
Clearly "natural" and "artificial" is an artificial distinction.
Humans are part of nature, and everything they do is part of nature.
But naturally the distinction continues to persist.
Here is an isomorph:
Artificial is to natural as consciousness is to unconsciousness.
There is often a feeling that natural things are better - the rich colors and textures of real solid wood vs bland uniform plastic - a beautiful mountain stream vs a patchwork of oil-stained asphalt surrounding a gas station. The unconscious mind is similarly better - if the consciousness thinks too hard about trying to walk and not spill a cup of water, the cup is spilled. If the consciousness just lets the unconscious mind control the movements, they're smoother and the cup is not spilled.
The good vs bad is an artificial distinction too. The consciousness is a universal tool, not as good as any of the body parts at doing their jobs, but able to do jobs that no other body part can, including jobs that don't exist yet. A sucky universal tool. It's a primitive thing like the first eye - a simple light/dark sensor that can help seek warmth or whatever benefits the first proto-eyes provided. Perhaps it could someday evolve into something able to consciously walk without spilling water, with no unconscious running the vast majority of its existence.
So says the primitive blind worm of my conscious and unconscious mind today.
Humans are part of nature, and everything they do is part of nature.
But naturally the distinction continues to persist.
Here is an isomorph:
Artificial is to natural as consciousness is to unconsciousness.
There is often a feeling that natural things are better - the rich colors and textures of real solid wood vs bland uniform plastic - a beautiful mountain stream vs a patchwork of oil-stained asphalt surrounding a gas station. The unconscious mind is similarly better - if the consciousness thinks too hard about trying to walk and not spill a cup of water, the cup is spilled. If the consciousness just lets the unconscious mind control the movements, they're smoother and the cup is not spilled.
The good vs bad is an artificial distinction too. The consciousness is a universal tool, not as good as any of the body parts at doing their jobs, but able to do jobs that no other body part can, including jobs that don't exist yet. A sucky universal tool. It's a primitive thing like the first eye - a simple light/dark sensor that can help seek warmth or whatever benefits the first proto-eyes provided. Perhaps it could someday evolve into something able to consciously walk without spilling water, with no unconscious running the vast majority of its existence.
So says the primitive blind worm of my conscious and unconscious mind today.
no subject
A common example is that homosexuality is bad because it is unnatural (in the sense that gay sex produces no offspring and therefore serves no natural purpose).
Even if you accept the dubious proposition that evolution has no use for genders beyond the two biggies, the whole "unnatural is bad" equation is inconsistently applied. Is it "natural" to drive cars, write poetry, or electronically transfer funds to a disaster relief organization? Not by a long stretch. Yet those who rail against the unnatural nonetheless fill their lives with other, equally unnatural activities.
no subject
...equally unnatural activities which they consider acceptable if not downright desirable.
Whenever someone hauls out the "unnatural is bad" trope, I find myself suspecting that they really don't want to admit that their opinion is simply the result of unreasoning bias.