Re: "Natural"

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_yeats.ucc.ie>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:39:28 +0100 (BST)


bjm10:
> First, I concur that there is no "natural definition" of "natural". When
> speaking of Chaos, what really matters is a THEOLOGICAL (in the broadest
> sense) definition of "natural".

Indeed so. Quotes on 'natural' are certainly strongly advised; this terminology may not to the best, or even downright misleading, in cases.

> Regardless of the current state of affairs,
> "natural" is the state in which things SHOULD have been, had chaos (sin)
> never entered the world.

Right, verily. That's exactly so, in the context of the cultures and context of the usage in this thread.

> Of course, this is only if you want a theological or mystical Glorantha.

Nope, the 'natural world' (in this sort of sense) doesn't really make sense as an ideal for the mystical perspective in Glorantha. It's basically true for the theistic, naturalistic (esp. so) and materialist POVs, though, IIACD. (YMMV.[*])

Slan,
Alex.


[*] ... Mystics, that is.


Powered by hypermail