Aquinas on Natural Law | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (38).

[–] • 0 pt

thanks for sharing again the extended insights.

on this tangent I can't help but ponder about the extent for which nature 'allows' us to 'create' - and perhaps what we 'should' (destined to?) create if we are to create things not only are lasting but that which grow ie- which resonate with nature's motion.

you already gave nice example of the seeded garden that becomes an ecosystem of insects and animals who together with the planter can all live in harmony; a 'floating of all boats' and attraction of life based on self sustance.

yet back to this ever moving path of nature, which as you describe represents ALL information and energy; infinite potential accessible via comprehension...

taking the garden example & this energy/information concept to an actionable conclusion - should we not focus our 'building' efforts on such things as yes gardens, but perhaps for those with grander visions: 'towers of gardens' for lack of better words...

maybe I can try with just another example to attempt to impart what I envision here (and what I suspect is an actionable conclusion or at least a direction one could resolve to go into based on these lessons of comprehension) ... instead of building a new residential tower downtown. Plant a giant tree. Instead of using machinery to 'construct' it - grow it, pehraps with the help of an ecosystem around it to encourage its optimal growth into the tower you wish it to be ('to build'). And instead of guttting it out for dwellings - build on it, in a sustainable way. As a bees nest forms - or birds nest - or a rodents home in one of the holes that forms.

do you see what I am trying to propose here; and perhaps conclude based on these lessons ? Seems obvious, but maybe not because we are either trained to not build like this or think like this - and/or maybe it just doesn't work or is not practical as I envision here - but it seems that we should simply 'build' in harmony with nature in adherence to its ever changing movement and based on not only our own self-sustenance but in the interest of the core of nature itself (ie- the tree) and all of the many denizens who may come together to help foster that core growth. I'm trying not to get too fantastical with this but maybe we should be building 'forest cities' not 'concrete cities' ....

thanks for sharing again the extended insights. on this tangent I can't help but ponder about the extent for which nature 'allows' us to 'create' - and perhaps what we 'should' (destined to?) create if we are to create things not only are lasting but that which grow ie- which resonate with nature's motion. you already gave nice example of the seeded garden that becomes an ecosystem of insects and animals who together with the planter can all live in harmony; a 'floating of all boats' and attraction of life based on self sustance. yet back to this ever moving path of nature, which as you describe represents ALL information and energy; infinite potential accessible via comprehension... taking the garden example & this energy/information concept to an actionable conclusion - should we not focus our 'building' efforts on such things as yes gardens, but perhaps for those with grander visions: 'towers of gardens' for lack of better words... maybe I can try with just another example to attempt to impart what I envision here (and what I suspect is an actionable conclusion or at least a direction one could resolve to go into based on these lessons of comprehension) ... instead of building a new residential tower downtown. Plant a giant tree. Instead of using machinery to 'construct' it - grow it, pehraps with the help of an ecosystem around it to encourage its optimal growth into the tower you wish it to be ('to build'). And instead of guttting it out for dwellings - build on it, in a sustainable way. As a bees nest forms - or birds nest - or a rodents home in one of the holes that forms. do you see what I am trying to propose here; and perhaps conclude based on these lessons ? Seems obvious, but maybe not because we are either trained to not build like this or think like this - and/or maybe it just doesn't work or is not practical as I envision here - but it seems that we should simply 'build' in harmony with nature in adherence to its ever changing movement and based on not only our own self-sustenance but in the interest of the core of nature itself (ie- the tree) and all of the many denizens who may come together to help foster that core growth. I'm trying not to get too fantastical with this but maybe we should be building 'forest cities' not 'concrete cities' ....

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

That being said; all creation set into motion will be corrupted and destroy by motion unless constantly maintained.

yet therein lies a key aspect of this thread....your insights taken to their logical conclusion seem to imply we should avoid wasting effort on creating corruptable structures & instead simply 'leverage' nature's natural maintenance system. Ie- by planting seeds we need to survive & inviting other lifeforms to help maintain it; creating an ecosystem for them to survive & grow in unity with us.

Or to use a contrasting analogy: a software programmer seeks to automate a procedure using digital language and machinery/robots - which is difficult because much of that work goes against nature and at best represents structures that can easily be destroyed (technology) - whereas if programmer simply focused his/her efforts in nature they could acheive 'automation' of their needs naturally and in a way that is not easily destroyed but one that is sustained and grows; generations beyond even their death and without efffort beyond said death or needing a 'software program' continually running.

now, we don't want to necessarily sleep among bugs and forest critters - but what I am trying to convey here is perhaps a vision for a 'city' or 'village' in a forest-like environment that is less concreate and features more natural structures that the ecosystem ie- nature will be inclined to maintain 'automatically'.

and im also trying to ascertain whether or not 'forests' were not created by the very intelligence we can 'tap into' if we can comprehend/grasp/and perhaps 'wield' if we were to more effectively unify...

as you say we are ONE within ALL; we are the ecosystem itself sustaining itself and so if we 'decided' to create a new "era of forests" and get off this concrete devolution path but rather envisioned a 'city forest' one that does not destroy trees but encourages more, and larger/taller ones - and one that does not endanger animals but that attracts them; as well as perhaps reserving a place for us inside too; ie- not in concrete towers but perhaps more natural dwellings in the sides of hills or maybe even our own 'towers in the trees' innovative spaces that could be designed to securely rest on the branches and crevaces of trees not unlike how the very critters there do now (or maybe our own 'nests' that use a combination of man-made technologies but nestled in this 'tree' environment not unlike the structure and strategic placement of an insect nest).

its funny as i write this cause it suggests 'devolving' back into monkey days, a thought crossed my mind to replace transport with a network of swinging vines haha - yet I do ponder about the viability of 'advanced forest cities' that may be possible at some point... maybe now, as refuge from communists & its idolotors. And particularly as we become increasingly aware that these 'concrete jungles' many of us find ourselves in are effectively concentration camps that as you say require constant maintanenence - what better thing to keep prisoners busy than to keep them tending to the never-ending maintenance of their own crumbling prisons.

Yes. Concrete is designed to stiffen growth, to desperately hold back motion enforcing order by transmuting creation back to base, and into balance. Burn a forest down and watch nature reclaim it; recreating an ecosystem from source, while emitting out to attract life.

Again, this seems to support the conclusion that we should build not with concrete but with nature. Why not instead of building a city in concrete we instead build a city in the forest?

> That being said; all creation set into motion will be corrupted and destroy by motion unless constantly maintained. yet therein lies a key aspect of this thread....your insights taken to their logical conclusion seem to imply we should avoid wasting effort on creating corruptable structures & instead simply 'leverage' nature's natural maintenance system. Ie- by planting seeds we need to survive & inviting other lifeforms to help maintain it; creating an ecosystem for them to survive & grow in unity with us. Or to use a contrasting analogy: a software programmer seeks to automate a procedure using digital language and machinery/robots - which is difficult because much of that work goes against nature and at best represents structures that can easily be destroyed (technology) - whereas if programmer simply focused his/her efforts in nature they could acheive 'automation' of their needs naturally and in a way that is not easily destroyed but one that is sustained and grows; generations beyond even their death and without efffort beyond said death or needing a 'software program' continually running. now, we don't want to necessarily sleep among bugs and forest critters - but what I am trying to convey here is perhaps a vision for a 'city' or 'village' in a forest-like environment that is less concreate and features more natural structures that the ecosystem ie- nature will be inclined to maintain 'automatically'. and im also trying to ascertain whether or not 'forests' were not created by the very intelligence we can 'tap into' if we can comprehend/grasp/and perhaps 'wield' if we were to more effectively unify... as you say we are ONE within ALL; we are the ecosystem itself sustaining itself and so if we 'decided' to create a new "era of forests" and get off this concrete devolution path but rather envisioned a 'city forest' one that does not destroy trees but encourages more, and larger/taller ones - and one that does not endanger animals but that attracts them; as well as perhaps reserving a place for us inside too; ie- not in concrete towers but perhaps more natural dwellings in the sides of hills or maybe even our own 'towers in the trees' innovative spaces that could be designed to securely rest on the branches and crevaces of trees not unlike how the very critters there do now (or maybe our own 'nests' that use a combination of man-made technologies but nestled in this 'tree' environment not unlike the structure and strategic placement of an insect nest). its funny as i write this cause it suggests 'devolving' back into monkey days, a thought crossed my mind to replace transport with a network of swinging vines haha - yet I do ponder about the viability of 'advanced forest cities' that may be possible at some point... maybe now, as refuge from communists & its idolotors. And particularly as we become increasingly aware that these 'concrete jungles' many of us find ourselves in are effectively concentration camps that as you say require constant maintanenence - what better thing to keep prisoners busy than to keep them tending to the never-ending maintenance of their own crumbling prisons. > Yes. Concrete is designed to stiffen growth, to desperately hold back motion enforcing order by transmuting creation back to base, and into balance. Burn a forest down and watch nature reclaim it; recreating an ecosystem from source, while emitting out to attract life. Again, this seems to support the conclusion that we should build not with concrete but with nature. Why not instead of building a city in concrete we instead build a city in the forest?

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt