Re: (Re)Introduction, Art, Nature, Periods of the Day

En réponse à Ajin Kwai :

>hi, i'm yasmin...
>i used to post regularly, perhaps a couple years ago,
>but have been lurking again the past few weeks.  Never
>formally introduced myself in the first place.
Welcoem back then! :)

>29 yo "professional" freespirit, been working on my
>pet project draqa since i was 10.  It's been through
>quite a change over the years, but still retains even
>a bit of original material.  There have been others,
>but only draqa really has demanded to be nurtured...
I do remember the name "Draqa". Mmm... I have to look back into it :) .


>I wonder if the concept of the Japanese garden, etc.
>is not one of nature tamed, but of nature fulfilling
>itself... if truly seen from the perspective of
>"humans=nature".  How many insects, animals, even
>plants organize spaces in nature to make them more
>amenable to whatever use is intended?  Very many
>indeed... Is theirs too a defense against nature?  Or
>is that a particular way of looking at a
>near-universal activity of nature's denizens?
I think the term "defense against nature" is misleading here. Anthills,
nests, skinplates, poisons, etc..., when used as defense, are not a
"defense against nature", but "defense against some hostile parts of the
environment of the creature". They are not made to severe oneself from
nature, just to achieve a balance with their environment where they can
survive a reasonable time (if possible the time that has been allowed to
them by their biological clock). If you look closely, no defense made by
animals or plants are perfect, and they don't intend to perfect them.
That's because those "imperfections" are the necessary ports needed to
communicate with the environment. Those "defenses" are very often also the
means by which the critter communicates with its surroundings.
Now the difference with humanity (and especially Western societies) is this
idea of balance with our environment. There's no question that we are part
of Nature, since Nature is by definition anything that exists in it. But
the  problem here is that unlike all the species that have been taken as
examples of species that "shelter themselves against nature", we
(Westerners) have never managed to reach this balance with our environment.
We're not the only species to have never managed that. In the biological
history of our planet, quite a few species have never managed to create a
balance with their environment. But those have always disappeared as a
consequence of this lack of balance (and before someone points at
grasshooper plagues and such, I will point out that those do live in
balance with their environment. True, they do destroy about everything on
their road, but when they live a place, life comes back to it, and they
never come back again before it has completely recovered. That's balance
too, albeit a very dynamic - and thus fragile - one). The only difference
with us is that we have acquired so much power that the environment cannot
win over us anymore (not on a global level at least). Instead, we are the
ones destroying our environment (the result will eventually be the same.
Being an environmentalist is not a matter of luxury. It's a matter of
survival).
So it's not so much a debate about whether we are part of Nature or not. We
are, like anything and everything existing, including our own creations
(however poisonous for the environment it can be, any kind of plastic is
just as natural as wood. It's made of the same elemental bricks after all).
The debate is about whether we can achieve balance with our environment,
and take of it only what we need, and let it recover when we hurt it.
Unlike any other surviving species here, we aren't doing that right now.
Instead, we remodel our environment to what we like, according to a false
assumption that we are "out of" Nature, and we disturb its mechanisms of
recovery, to the point that it cannot remain balanced anymore.

And before someone says anything, yes, Agent Smith did say about the same
thing in "The Matrix" (wow! A connection to another current thread of the
list! ;))) ). That doesn't make my point any weaker. Even cheesy movies
(don't take me wrong, I loved the movie, and am going to watch "The Matrix:
Reloaded" next Saturday, but I do know about its shortcomings - I guess I'm
better at suspension of belief than many other people ;)) -) can have great
messages :)) .

Anyway, Yasmin, sorry for hijacking your "I'm back" post for those things
:((( . But I felt your reply was the best for me to add on it. Welcome back
again anyway!

Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.