Ingen mänsklig kärlek eller beröring kan vinna över synen jag såg igår. Det Vilda i hela sin stolthet, prakt och främmande hemskhet ger mig mer frihet, lycka och upprymdhet än något annat.

 I love not Man the less, but Nature more.

In one form or another, of course. But I prefer the pure one :)

The pure one? How do you distinguish?

Pure from the stains of a human mind :3

Ah. But, you construe it with your own biases, and can we really say that nature is pure from our "stains"?. But of course, experience is subjective.
I wouldn't really use the term pure. It creates kind of a false dichotomy of pure/unpure, and I wouldn't necessarily agree that we belong on the opposite end of the spectrum. I would call the wilder nature untouched or maybe raw.
Just a little thought to ignite some speculation. :)

Maybe employing some Japanese terminology will help to describe your experience?
'Yugen' = An awareness of the universe that triggers an emotional response too deep and powerful for words.
This kind of describes the term 'numinous' as well. :)

of having a human mind*. It does not have to be untouched by us (I'd prefer it like that, but it is not a needed criteria). In this case, the triggering view was a line of trees seen from the window of a bus for example.
I would definitely agree with you, we as humans dont have to be unpure, but we do have a mind as we are living individuals. One thrives in the idea of Nature having a mind on its own that would be similar to ours (so that we could speak to It, gwaaaaah<3), but this is not the case. In that sense, I would define them as purer than us.

That word was useful indeed! You get the idea :)

Well, I see what you mean. But you are saying that you think raw nature is purer because it lacks a mind? I am not really following why. I would rather say - as Carl Sagan said 1998:
"Because the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
So I would not say that anything is more or less pure or valuable. Sure we can use our faculties more effectively in order to minimize harm. But still.
Yeah, I have studied a lot of Asian philosophy and religion, so you tend to stumble upon these useful words. :P

1990*

Carl Sagan is quite the man, good quote there! :]
If I may intrude a little, I think I may offer a viewpoint that elaborates just a little further on this beautiful subject.
I mean, it's all a matter of what philosophy you choose to lean on, here. Subjective viewpoints galore!

I mean, I choose to look at humankind and nature (defining nature here as the growing and changing flora and fauna, the Universe could surely be called "nature", because it affects living things greatly (evidently) but nevertheless I like to keep the two definitons apart, just to have a name for "the wilds") like two fundamentally connected but also separated phenomena.
I found this beautiful picture that will help illustrate my distinctions: http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/734789_536557626363000_1659754148_n.jpg
Here, the likeness between a city and a neuron.

We humans work on a more complex, intricate level of existance, (most subconsciously) trying harder and harder to connect all of earths humans to this giant brain construct, enabling transport and thought just like a cell would. The Macroindividual, you know the deal. We are, after all, very keen on replicating our own patterns and likenesses.

Nature is fundamentally different in the way that it doesn't foresee events nor is it sentient in the sense that we would define sentient, but it does also grow and develop and envelop. Only without planning. It gives birth to stuff, what lives lives and what doesn't work dies. It spawns crazy patterns, beautiful sceneries (yes, all human definitions. It is a bit crazy to try and move outside of that viewpoint when using subjective terms, however xD) and weird adaptations.
Like, the cosmos is this bodiless cloud of particles, the infinite playfield and entity not needing to adapt nor change, since it is All (It can be reasoned that it is sentient just because it contains us), Nature is the body, "mindlessly" (you get the point!) developing it's shapes and contours and different bodily functions in a fluid stream of continuity. While we, the humans, have stopped developing our body, both at a slower darwinian rate because of our other means to survive, and also to try and halt the natural occurences that already inhabits it, aging etc. Instead, we embark on this crazy playfield of the mind, just as large and diverse as the universe, but with the power to adapt and shape itself like nature. It's survival of the fittest mind, for us.

Hannah's small revelation could just be the bodily sensation of connection to that primal, ineffable Beast that is nature. Because we need a Natural body in order to house our mind, thus the connection is pretty established.

In a sense, we (the cosmos, nature, and humanity) are parts of the universe who are gradually developing to try harder and harder to maintain a "Stasis Equilibria", with exponential effect the further down the ladder you go.
(Cosmos, Nature, Mind, all part of the Universe. It's a "trichotomy"! :'D)

Woashit, I'm very sorry for long post, I got carried away. Hope it aint all just mumbo-jumbo for you guys, I can get a little confusing sometimes x)
General disclaimer: Much of this is just speculative and interesting thoughts. I hold a very vague sense of "how things are", as our current knowledges, philosophies and theories aren't enough to describe anything satisfactory. I mean, they are all right and wrong at the same time, just because they exist.

With a speculative purpose - you can absolutely choose any philosophical school you want. The only problem is, that the only thing that has worked so far that we know is philosophical naturalism. I tend to not go into these subjects too deeply, because you always end up defining epistemology and truisms.

Well, I would not say that they are separate phenomena - only that they are in different places. We tend to divide nature into "in here" and "out there". I am not necessarily talking about internal - external, but more "here" and "over there".

I would neither agree on calling the subconscious another level of existence. Everything exists here. How do we define separate layers of existence? Speculative premises conflated into a concept does not make a satisfying syllogism. We are also trying to connect people due to evolutional factors. We are social animals, and we tend to strive after connecting with other animals of our own species (even though we strive after connecting with other animals as well). All social species strive after becoming - to borrow your term - "macro individual".

I would agree with you that the universe is not sentient as we define it. It does not develop and grow with a goal in mind. We also cannot foresee things - we can make educated guesses. I sould also say that the cosmos - I assume that you use cosmos and universe interchangeably as no one usually gives definitions - is not bodiless. Everything put together would be one body, right? And then, everything in it would be the intestines I guess. X)

We have not stopped developing our bodies. We are transitional forms. Everything that can be said to be alive is a transitional forms (if we accept planets, stars and singularities as alive to, although maybe not sentient). It is also not the survival of the fittest mind I would say. Evolution has to do with selection pressure, which says that we change according to environment. If suddenly the environment changed into a less challenging one, our mental capabilities would not evolve.

I am not a big fan of thinking of oneself as a separate being in some way. A body that houses a mind like something cut of from everything else. As both Lawrence Krauss and Carl Sagan has said: "We are made of stardust." I am also a huge fan of Alan Watts take on our inextricable position: "If I am my foot, I am the sun."

I would also not say that we are "parts" of the universe. We are the universe, happening right now.

I would not call it a trichotomy, rather a trinity. :P

I tend to keep a loose sense of what really is until we can get some answers about what is actually going on. I have never been a fan of jumping to conclusion, and as you can see, my writings here are - too - speculative.
I see know that I disagreed with a lot of what you said. X) But, that is what is good for development of character and thought. :)

methodological naturalism*
Sorry.

I see your point, Dimhall, but I do feel that Nature, in its silent being is somewhat purer than us. The time I do feel pure is when I am close to nature, and not interacting in the human society. I feel connected to the Universe, as Grove here points out. It might have to do with my belief of what happens to us when we die (or it might be more of a wish than an actual belief x) ). My thought is that we become a part of this silent Universe, floating by without a mind but with a feeling of serenity. That is my dream :)

I like the idea of us being Watchers, that is what I would call us. We are here to... "bevittna" is the word I am searching for. And this might be a mission given to us by what could be called a God, or it might just...be. As Carl-Sagan said, "We are the way for cosmos to know itself". Either way, it's an encouraging thought, and it would indeed give us more purity, but only if we would follow this path or devote ourselves to this assignment (as I would see it :3). I do not see this purity in us when we try to be something we are not, like conquerors. Yes, I do believe that Human Nature is good (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). And yes, Grove, the way you describe the mind might give it more purity, I might have to recognize my point being less and less valid the further this discussion progresses x)

First off I just want to say I'm thrilled by these answers, they are intriguing and insightful! Far too often does one stumble upon people who disagrees without giving satisfactory elaborations as to why, but not this time :]

I linger more inbetween methodological naturalism and philosophical. I'm far too much in doubt about our senses and minds to accept it as absolute, and reading about the quantum theories as well as naked/event horizon covered singularities make me less sure about these things, considering the laws of the universe as we know them sometimes simply does not work in these examples (Quantum mechanics operate on them, but includes chance to an extent, and Singularities supposedly cause them to break down).

That's why I also said that they were fundamentally connected. I mean, adressing such a question as whether the universe is connected or separated would yield a large quantity of different answers, simply because we can and do think of personalized contexts when asked such an open question. It's all connected, but fundamentally different if you look at it with the right prerequisites in mind. Otherwise, thesis and antithesis couldn't exist.

Oh, and I didn't divide nature as such, to specify my definitions here (they are not absolute nor does Cosmos actually sound like a reasonable name, but it's just used within the context of this discussion):
1. Universe - Everything, including the structure of spacetime and it's growing infinity, as well as following definitions.
2. Cosmos - Non-self-replicating chemical and physical reactions, could be regarded as sentient but not in any way we can comprehend or even have any use for expect for mayhaps ontological purposes.
3. Nature - Self-replicating cell-based life.
4. Humanity/Mind - Context-based non-self-replicating (however the context may be replicated) chemical and physical self-awareness through Natural-inclined bodies as medium.

Well, now you're just underestimating my insights, here! I did not mean that there is an absolute, defined line between the conscious and the subconscious (just as with whether the universe is connected or not), only that since we cannot consciously reach our subconscious we can only consciously percieve it as another plane, since it is very much unreachable through conventional means. That it does affect us is incontestable, forcing a connection (or flow) to exist.
Concerning the macro individual: Yes? That's pretty much what I thought I said x) The social factor is a cause just like the comfort and improvement obsession is (along with many more causes, I'd bet), the macro individual is their effect. The point was that that is what we aim for.

Well, here is where I originally was going to write that the universe and the cosmos ARE two separate definitions in this context, but that's already done above aaaaand I can see that I screwed my own definiton over here. I meant that the Universe, not the cosmos, is this huge, all-encompassing thing, but I meant bodiless in the same sense that a gas cloud is bodiless. It upholds the structure of timespace and is more importantly bodiless in its sense of just existing, but it also serves as playfield for the cosmos, nature, and the mind. Thus it is all of these.

Yeah, I shouldn't have said stopped, more like halted (this is enforced by my use of the term "slower darwinian rate", suggesting that it does progress, only slower than before) in favor of the quickly changing and adapting thoughts, simply because they were more efficient. This statement I would like to say is in agreement with naturalism as well as darwinism. ( I do not view planets or stars as "life", sentient or not, since life is defined by its self-replicating qualities. I.e a planet cannot give birth to another planet, you have envision a gas cloud retracting into focused dots. That does not mean that it isn't "alive" or "sentient" in some alien sense outside of our way or ability to think, but it doesn't make it "alive" by that definition either). Still, both life and cosmos is transitional in that sense. Matter can after all only be given form through time as a medium, and time flows forever on with the microcosmic changes that governs all.
"If suddenly the environment changed into a less challenging one, our mental capabilities would not evolve."
It might have been like that for a Nature evolution, but the mind does not quite operate on the same conditions. For that to happen you need to alter the fundamentals (or the environment, if you will) of the mind itself. I think the mind always heightens the environmental standards by itself, by lowering the thrill of things we are used to. "The grass is greener" is that one thing that you need to remove for the environments to actually become unchallenging, but then you would also have to remove imaginative and speculative thinking since that's where that thinking hails from, rendering this discussion useless.

Parts or continuos flow, see it for what you will but reject none. It's just like with photons: They are wavelengths and particle at the same time. Things that appear contradictive is, as said before, vital for reaction (scientific and otherwise) to exist. Kind of how like I see hypocrisy as a very underestimated and important part of psychology.

The trichotomy thing was mostly a joke, but I guess either definition works x)


Shit man, I don't know if I can handle another answer. This shit just gets exponentially longer! I can see that I need to work on sending the message through more clearly; while I daresay I understood your texts very well mine was filled with questionable definitions. I love to fill words with personal meanings (mostly also because my vocabulary isn't large enough to explain things in a satisfying way), but it causes misunderstandings and post-elaborations.
But how right you are! Like stated, clashing forces are needed for change to occur. Complete agreement would mean mental-developmental stasis, at least in human relations. I must compliment you on your use of the language as well as tempered agressiveness (i.e, not fearing clashing opinions) and knowledge. I like you.

Hannah:
Maybe the universe appears as purer because it does not display any of the qualities you deem immoral, or in other words a sentience like us?

*I just saw your correction on methodological/philosophical naturalism. Disregard what I said about that.