Re : "Natural"

From: Simon Hibbs <simonh_at_msi-uk.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:32:04 +0100


bjm10 :

>First, I concur that there is no "natural definition" of "natural".

Perhaps this would be easier if we had a good working definition of what is unnatural. Any definition of nature has to be able to distinguish the natural from the unnatural.

To an extent any such definition is likely to be self-refferential. For example something is natural if it obeys natural laws, which requires that we define what the natural laws are. There is inevitably an element of arbitrariness in any such definition.

We also have to beware of overly-literal interpretation of some of the sources. For example the Orlanthi description of chaos includes the phrase "Chaos is the emptiness inside all of us" or some such. Evidently this deosn't mean that all Orlanthi are chaotic, but perhaps that they all feel the presence of chaos in the world in that way.

You're already familiar with my definition. Chaos is unnatural because it orriginates outside the world and is not derived from the orriginal act of creation of the world. Everything else in the world obeys common laws which we might call 'laws of nature', chaos does not.

For example chaos can destroy something so completely that nothing remains, no residue exists in heaven, earth or hell. It is as though that thing never existed. This to me seems self evidently unnatural. Even death merely seperates the living from the dead.

Alternative definitions?

Simon Hibbs


Powered by hypermail