What the word nature means

[Autumn]

Nature. The word nature. Can that also serve as a verb, or only as a self -term word?
I think there is no clarity about the word nature.
It means several things.
Some things cannot be translated.

We have to talk English. That ensures unnecessary blockages. We can't express ourselves well like that.
I don't understand that English has such a force majeure as a language.
Let us not keep stupid.

Our nature. Is it fixed or can be formed.

A nature can seem more stupid than it is.

Nature can hide.

But we set limits to move forward.
This is how the word initiation arose.

But that was thwarted.
The problems it gives have still not been resolved.
Don't let us christilize out, too quickly.

There is another way to go. Especially for those who are of goodwill.

I find it on this forum for the first time.
The compliments.

I prefer to see myself as an alchemist. I think that is the best, at least in the Western area.
There are very good and intelligent Christians among the Christians.
If we want to get further, because let God be with us, then we learn to be of politics, individually courageous and not anonymous, because that we are part as an individual of a larger whole, is what everyone should realize. Read everything.

There is so much interesting. Even politics. My appreciation goes to them.

Politician show what I miss with many people. And that is their interest in a larger whole, where we as a Christian should not be lagging behind.

Speak also Volks.

This cannot be said in English unless folks.

The Translator Can Not Translate Languages Very Well.

The translators are full with problems and the urge to win is not to serve, what makes AI a bit arrogant, it is only made out of dust remarkable.

 

[Autumn]

The word nature can be explained as natural.

Can we control and shape our nature?
Do we have to let our nature take its course because nature is also law at the same time?

And can we mix these two?

What does mixing mean?

I don't know if I can say two natures.

It is controlled or let it go.

What is law? Is Nature Act?

Can we make rules and set limits?

Is that lines being broken and can no longer control?
Is there a link with Kundalini?

What does nature mean? Is that something blanc.

Will a Judge be fooled if you act Different then what you are?

How can a Judge stand above Being fooled?

How Gather Evidence?
If we are we can do as we are pleasing.
If we are poor we get an endless list of commands and demandings or else.
Then the strange way of punishments.
Do we Punish for our pleasure?

Punishment would then be useless. Yet what mean, meaning well with somebody Else?

Does good exists in nature or only selfishness?

 

[RabbiO]

You’re going have to find a workable solution to your inability to write in English. Both of your posts border on, and even cross into, incomprehensibility.

 

[Autumn]

You’re going have to find a workable solution to your inability to write in English. Both of your posts border on, and even cross into, incomprehensibility.

It is in all languages the same. It is more the subject I talk about then it has to do with the language.

 

[RabbiO]

It is in all languages the same. It is more the subject I talk about then it has to do with the language.

The problem does not lie with concepts, subject matter. Those can be, it's true, difficult to express. However, in your case, here, and in other posts on the forum, the basic problem is your apparent English writing deficiencies.

Saying that is not a reflection on your character or your ideas. It is, for want of a better term, a technical issue, but it remains a problem.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The problem does not lie with concepts, subject matter. Those can be, it's true, difficult to express. However, in your case, here, and in other posts on the forum, the basic problem is your apparent English writing deficiencies.

Saying that is not a reflection on your character or your ideas. It is, for want of a better term, a technical issue, but it remains a problem.

It's the new trend.
I'm happy to see new members. I am confused by much of what is being said by several new members.
I want to hope that with patience and time it will get easier to communicate effectively in both directions.

 

[wil]

Yes, as the internet joins the world, and we attempt to have a joint discussion on religion, with thousands of religions, hundreds of countries, dozens of languages, various cultures, beliefs, economic backgrounds and educational levels there is bound to be struggle....it is in this forum by definition and decree, tis the reason we gather.

As the US attempts to fine common ground within, we are on the Frontlines of an other worldly common ground eh? The struggle is real yet we are simply meeting it with our finger tips....I got blisters on my fingers, helter skelter!

Someday we will have our tower of babel, an ai plug in where we each speak our language, our colloquillisms and our robotic overlords will translate and sa itize to help keep the peace....

We should still be amazed this is natural that we can communicate at all in this nature with folks from around the globe...how soon will it be natural to do the same with folks from other universes or dimensions?

Back to topic.at hand.

Metaphysical meaning of nature (rw)
nature--The intellect's name for God. Men fall short when they seek to find God by studying nature. Instead of molding and animating the cells of their bodies, they project thought outward in speculating about the universe and its law. Nature is the servant of mind, and when lawful thoughts are enthroned in consciousness nature restores the natural harmony existing between Spirit, soul, and body. When man asserts his divine supremacy he dominates nature.

nature, animal--The undisciplined nature in man or that phase of his being which has been allowed to express according to the desires of sense.

nature, restorative power of--This is the name given by doctors to the Spirit of health, which is always right at hand awaiting an opportunity to enter in to make whole and to harmonize all discords in the body

 

[Thomas]

Metaphysical meaning of nature (rw)
nature--The intellect's name for God. Men fall short when they seek to find God by studying nature. Instead of molding and animating the cells of their bodies, they project thought outward in speculating about the universe and its law. Nature is the servant of mind, and when lawful thoughts are enthroned in consciousness nature restores the natural harmony existing between Spirit, soul, and body. When man asserts his divine supremacy he dominates nature.

nature, animal--The undisciplined nature in man or that phase of his being which has been allowed to express according to the desires of sense.

nature, restorative power of--This is the name given by doctors to the Spirit of health, which is always right at hand awaiting an opportunity to enter in to make whole and to harmonize all discords in the body

Isn't this a kind of Enlightenment view of nature, that 'she' is an unruly creature (her proper place is 'servant of mind') that needs to be tamed by man?

Nature was there before man was ... this view seems more anthropocentric than metaphysical to me.

 

[Thomas]

In the beginning of Book Four of Periphyseon, Johann Scottus Eriugena’s 'Neoplatonic summa', he calls the work a physiologia, a “study of nature”.

In this, natura spans the whole cosmological domain, not just created nature but also the Uncreated, and speaks of the relation between Creator and created, where God expresses Himself in creation and creation culminates in return to the divine.

Nature is to be understood as what is real in the widest sense, "the totality of all things that are and are not" is a phrase he uses often.

His natura has four divisions:
Nature which creates and is not created (God),
Nature which creates and is created (the Primordial Causes),
Nature which is created and does not create (the Created Temporal Effects),
Nature which is neither created nor creates (Non-Being).

From here he goes on to describe the “five ways of interpreting”; the manner in which things may be said to be or not to be (Periphyseon, I.443c–446a).

First mode: things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said to be, whereas anything which, “through the excellence of its nature” (per excellentiam suae naturae), transcends our faculties are said not to be. According to this, God, because of his transcendence is said not to be.

Second mode: being seen in the “orders and differences of created natures”, whereby, if one level of nature is said to be, those orders above or below it, are said not to be.

Third mode: the being of actual things contrasted with the “non-being” of potential or possible things still contained “in the most secret folds of nature”. This mode contrasts things which have come into effect with those things which are still contained in their causes. According to this mode, actual things, which are the effects of the causes, have being, whereas those things which are still virtual in the Primary Causes (e.g., the souls of those as yet unborn) are said not to be.

Fourth mode: those things contemplated by the intellect alone may be considered to be, whereas things caught up in generation and corruption, viz. matter, place and time, do not truly exist. The assumption is that things graspable by intellect alone belong to a realm above the material, corporeal world and hence are timeless.

Fifth mode: those sanctified by grace are said to be, whereas sinners who have renounced the divine image are said not to be.

Eriugena resolves the traditional Neoplatonic hierarchy of being into a dialectic of affirmation and negation: to assert one level is to deny the others. In other words, a particular level may be affirmed to be real by those on a lower or on the same level, but the one above it is thought not to be real in the same way. If humans are thought to exist in a certain way, then angels do not exist in that way.

Being and non-being are treated as correlative categories: something may be said to be under one mode and not to be under another. Attribution of being is subject to the dialectic of affirmation and negation.

Thus when Eriugena calls God “nothing”, he means that God transcends all created being, God is “nothingness on account of excellence” or, “nothingness on account of infinity”. Matter, on the other hand, is also called “nothing” but it is “nothing through privation”. Similarly, created things are called “nothing” because they do not contain in themselves their principles of subsistence.