For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.
Pofarmer – “Humanity is, indeed, natural. However, humans can think, and feel, and ponder, and act and react with one another. Nature can do none of those things.”
If “Thinking”, “Feeling”, “Pondering”, “Acting”, and “Reacting with one another” is not nature; what is it?
Is it supernatural?
Pofarmer – “Talking in the generic “nature” as in Earth, Universe, etc. Indeed, I’ve seen no evidence indicating either the earth or universe thinks or has emotion.”
However, John Martignoni’s comments were specifically not talking to some strange “generic” conception of nature.
Who refers to “nature” as only the inorganic subset of it’s parts anyway?
Since you made me read back through this extremely unproductive conversation, perhaps you could take a moment to share the burden. I recommend practice in thinking about nature in a more holistic manner.
Even entertaining an understanding, that the more rarefied manifestations found in the phenomena of,”Thinking”, “Feeling”, “Pondering”, “Acting”, and “Reacting with one another”, can be considered emergent characteristics.
The Whole being greater than the sum of the parts. This is closer to the obvious truth.
Depending on the success of this experiment maybe the gap between you and John will close a bit, and a more honest dialogue will emerge from that.
In my experience, the question of “Good and Evil” resolves itself.
John Martignoni – “Do you know what it is called when you go beyond nature? Metaphysical.”
Ok, you and Pofarmer have been stewing in your own juices for several long days now.
In the hope of breaking the deadlock, I offered an adjustment to his conceptualization of “nature”.
I would like to do the same with you. This word “Metaphysical” is misleading when using it as some meta category exclusive of “nature”.
Since when, is “nature” limited to the physical?
When is any phenomena, arising from the activity of nature, outside of nature? different than nature?
Try substituting the word God in it’s place and erase all boundaries, subdivisions and exclusive categories.
The only time separation is relevant, is in the world of relative experience.
What would the point of Jesus be, if we continue to reinforce that?
I know that there is a process involved in learning this. Step by step, as they say. And so, I have butted in. I’m sure you would do the same for me.
Pofarmer – “Well, the entire conversation went something along the lines of, ‘ “nature is amoral so if man is from nature, then man by default is amoral.” ‘ I think it’s a specious argument, because man has agency. If you have a better way of looking at it? I’m all eyes.”
I’m pretty sure he had a theistic follow up, once he got you to acknowledge his premise.
Since I just laid out what I felt would be an improvement in yours, it would be bad form to go over it again.
However, I did take the liberty of advising him on the same matter, from a different angle. Perhaps you can triangulate from the two statements.
Kevin – “Hey BR, Thank you for all your commentary. Your viewpoint is aligned with where I’m going, but coming from your different angle really helps me work things out.
By the way if you have not seen House MD you might like it.”
Thank you for the feedback. It makes me happy, since I value your work as a bellwether. Founded in experience, the quality of Truth confirming Truth.
However, if I’m reminding you of Dr. House, I’ll have to consider the ambiance of THAT!
Physician heal thyself, and all. But then, what else are these excursions for? My apologies to any for whom I’ve failed to make this clear.