Do You Feel a Spiritual Connection with the Woods?

[Paul_B]

If you eat meat can you really call nature cruel? Nature doesn't breed animals unnaturally to provide better food. Nature doesn't rear animals in unnatural environments then transport them in metal boxes around the country just so they can be slaughtered for food. Then waste some of the meat?
At least nature uses all the animal in ways humans don't. Nature decomposes any meats not eaten by the predator or scavenger. Efficient in the use of carcass.
I just think its hypocritical somehow.

 

[santaman2000]

If you eat meat can you really call nature cruel? Nature doesn't breed animals unnaturally to provide better food. Nature doesn't rear animals in unnatural environments then transport them in metal boxes around the country just so they can be slaughtered for food. Then waste some of the meat?
At least nature uses all the animal in ways humans don't. Nature decomposes any meats not eaten by the predator or scavenger. Efficient in the use of carcass.
I just think its hypocritical somehow.

So you're saying the parts we don't eat, don't decompose? Just like in nature?

 

[norfolkjohn]

OK. guy's here's my takes on this.
I pack my bag & take myself off a wandering a shady tree a leafy meadow, whether in company or by myself.
On a clear day i do truly wonder at all nature has to offer.

 

[Paul_B]

Course they decompose but it is not us making use of it. We have wasted it but nature steps in to recover it. At least that is my simplistic view on it. I hope that helps explain my view.

 

[santaman2000]

Course they decompose but it is not us making use of it. We have wasted it but nature steps in to recover it. At least that is my simplistic view on it. I hope that helps explain my view.

Mine may be even more simplistic. We're part of nature. So our killing them IS natural. And that decomposition is just the same as the uneaten bits from any other animal's kill. Even our "artificially" raisng them is just another development of nature. Just as certain species of ants enslave other species.

 

[Paul_B]

I must admit my reasons for getting out is mostly to exercise in fresh air instead of a stuffy gym. I also like to see what's round the next corner. For me it's not really a spiritual thing. Not completely about nature but any "nature" I see whether a bracket funghi or an interesting tree shape it's just a bonus,an interesting thing to see but I can't attribute spirituality to it. That makes no sense to me.

 

[Paul_B]

I think we take the rearing well beyond that of some ants but it still leads to more waste. I just think we have gone beyond nature with it all and that's why I can't see it as part of nature. I also wonder if we are almost taking ourselves out of nature, manipulating it to our needs.

 

[santaman2000]

I think we take the rearing well beyond that of some ants but it still leads to more waste. I just think we have gone beyond nature with it all and that's why I can't see it as part of nature. I also wonder if we are almost taking ourselves out of nature, manipulating it to our needs.

Of course we're manipulating it. I mostly base my statement on the idea that we only have the ability to manipulate it because nature gave us that ability to begin with (intelect, opposing thumbs, a social requirement, etc.)

 

[Andy BB]

If you eat meat can you really call nature cruel? Nature doesn't breed animals unnaturally to provide better food. Nature doesn't rear animals in unnatural environments then transport them in metal boxes around the country just so they can be slaughtered for food. Then waste some of the meat?
At least nature uses all the animal in ways humans don't. Nature decomposes any meats not eaten by the predator or scavenger. Efficient in the use of carcass.
I just think its hypocritical somehow.

Of course "Nature" is cruel if viewed from a human morality standpoint. All animals in the wild suffer. So from a human morality standpoint, we improve upon nature for farm animals. In most cases these farm animals get plenty of food and water, shelter and a freedom from predators for all their life. And a vet if it falls ill. And at the end, a painless death awaits. (Sure, not all farm animals are well-treated, but any farmer worth his salt knows that a contented animal is a productive animal - and laws exist to ensure they are well-treated. Or at least they do in the developed world)

 

[RonW]

There is no such thing as "human morality".
The modern western morality is a far cry from the current Chinese morality. White men's morality showed next to ne resemblence to the native american one, which in turn shows hardly any resemblence to the ancient Roman or Greek morality. Heck, even yours differs fundamentally from mine and that's just between the 2 of us.

Nature is not sadistic, evil and cruel as you stated befor. That is what you make of it by measuring it up to your moral standards. Men are, but that's judged by my standards. All animals in the wild suffer?? We improve upon nature for farm animals? Again your moral standards. To me these statements reveal a pretty distorted view of the world and my standards probably do the same for you. So we could actually go on and on about it, in the end go for each other's throat and to no avail. We're discussing emotions and beliefs here.....
Wars have been fought over those.... Who was right? The one with the most military power claimed to be....

I think the question was if each of us personally feels a connection to nature that can be described as a spiritual experience. That's a very personal answer and does not require anyone to prove or disprove the existence of God, wood spirits, quantum mechanics, or anything else. Once we start trying to do things like that, everyone gets touchy and starts insulting the other side EQUALLY. No amount of juxtaposition of quotes changes that.

It doesn't happen often, but in this case I'd have to agree with Ross...

 

[Bumbler]

If you eat meat can you really call nature cruel? Nature doesn't breed animals unnaturally to provide better food. Nature doesn't rear animals in unnatural environments then transport them in metal boxes around the country just so they can be slaughtered for food. Then waste some of the meat?
At least nature uses all the animal in ways humans don't. Nature decomposes any meats not eaten by the predator or scavenger. Efficient in the use of carcass.
I just think its hypocritical somehow.

Actually nature does exactly that. Humans are also nature. The biggest lie ever created was when someone decided we where apart from nature.
As for nature using all the parts of an animal. So what happens when a wolf kills a moose. Does he consume all of it, or is most of the animal left to rot or be consumed by other parts of nature.?
Same as me when I am finished with my pork chops for dinner. The leftovers get thrown away and natrure will decompose it, same as the leftovers from a wolf or lion kill.

 

[John Fenna]

Actually nature does exactly that. Humans are also nature. The biggest lie ever created was when someone decided we where apart from nature.
As for nature using all the parts of an animal. So what happens when a wolf kills a moose. Does he consume all of it, or is most of the animal left to rot or be consumed by other parts of nature.?
Same as me when I am finished with my pork chops for dinner. The leftovers get thrown away and natrure will decompose it, same as the leftovers from a wolf or lion kill.

Dont waste the rib bone - they make great rubbers for shining up the welts of knife sheaths!

 

[Andy BB]

There is no such thing as "human morality".
The modern western morality is a far cry from the current Chinese morality. White men's morality showed next to ne resemblence to the native american one, which in turn shows hardly any resemblence to the ancient Roman or Greek morality. Heck, even yours differs fundamentally from mine and that's just between the 2 of us.

Nature is not sadistic, evil and cruel as you stated befor. That is what you make of it by measuring it up to your moral standards. Men are, but that's judged by my standards. All animals in the wild suffer?? We improve upon nature for farm animals? Again your moral standards. To me these statements reveal a pretty distorted view of the world and my standards probably do the same for you. So we could actually go on and on about it, in the end go for each other's throat and to no avail. We're discussing emotions and beliefs here.....
Wars have been fought over those.... Who was right? The one with the most military power claimed to be....



It doesn't happen often, but in this case I'd have to agree with Ross...

Pity you didn't read the post properly! I said that "Nature" is what it is, neither good nor evil. It is in fact the end result of 4.5 billion years of evolution.

HOWEVER - if viewed from a human morality standpoint (and lets assume I'm talkingabout current Western morality values) , it is undoubtedly evil - after all, surely most moral people would be against torturing an animal to death over an extended period (plenty of nature videos showing predators eating prey whilst it is still alive - google African Wild Dogs and buffalo for example) , or leaving it to starve to death?

And its this "fluffy bunny" anthropomorphisation of "Nature" that I object to. You think the wild (ie Nature) is a better place for animals to be than a farm environment - I suppose it is if you enjoy animal suffering. And if that's your moral standpoint, I'm glad mine differs from it!

 

[RonW]

Love Nature? How "interesting" to "love" something that ensures that all wild animals die either from starvation or being torn to pieces! Even the plants are at it, killing off all competition for the right to access the best sunlight, water or fertile soil. From a human morality position, Nature is sadistic, evil and cruel.

Pretty though.......

Hmmm, that's weird... How could I possibly have misread this?? And yet you repeat this statement in post 93.
Yes, after that you claim that nature is.... neither good nor bad, but still keep insisting on that "human morality standpoint". Don't know how I should be able to match that...

And I stated that there is no such thing as a "human morality standpoint" or even a "western morality standpoint" and I explained why. Maybe it should be you who has to carefully read others comments. Your moralities are not representative for all humans, thank god.
And then you talk about videos of animals in the wild, where hunters hunt and eat their prey without directly killing them?? Dear Andy, have you ever visited an abatoir or a henfarm? Ever checked on living conditions of pork and cow, bred to feed people? Egglayingbatteries ring a bell?? The living conditions of tens of millions of animals, that meatstuff that ends up on your plate, are appalling to say the least. That would be the place where I would use words as sadistic, evil and cruel. And yet you not only shove those things aside as trivial, but obviously even prefer to shut your eyes for the massive suffering of animals that goes on in the bioindustry.
As icing on the cake you point a blaming finger at those who appearantly practice something that you look upon as "fluffy bunny" anthropomorphisation of "Nature", because I and others do think that nature is indeed a better place for animals....

At least we have something to agree on... "And if that's your moral standpoint, I'm glad mine differs from it!"

 

[Andy BB]

Oh dear, Ron - I thought you had been following the thread - if so you would have read this..

"I notice, however, you don't deny my observations about "Nature" - by human moral standards - being sadistic, evil and cruel (and would fall foul of all of our animal cruelty laws, come to think of it..)

It is what it is - neither good, nor bad. One doesn't have to apply some metaphysical personage to it, or some "spiritual" linkage to enjoy the outdoors, appreciate its benefits and the advantages of preserving it as much as possible"

As for the rest, well, I'll let you continue with your fluffy bunny beliefs about the wild, and your complete ignorance and experience of farming practices, at least in the UK.​

 

[ReamviThantos]

i think you guys should arange a meet and let me know where and when it will be for a great discussion, i'm sure you could grease the world and make it slide nice. :You_Rock_

 

[Dobloz]

Spirituality is a nonsense term. Nonsense in that there is no sense or meaning to the word and its use should be avoided. Most of you in this thread seem to be asking what is spirituality or trying to desperately to define it, and that's a sure sign a word isn't doing its job.

As an atheist I can revel ..., a beast of the earth itself.

Edit: I'm merely curious... There seem to be a few pagans in this thread, so might I ask if any of you subscribe to a particular reconstructionist movement, or have you opted already for a patch-work syncretic world-view?

Hi THOaken,

Just taking a look at some possible word meanings, maybe to help the discussion on feeling 'spiritual', or not, for the wider bushcraft community...

i think the word 'spiritual' comes from the word spirit? spirit (v.)
1590s, "to make more active or energetic" (of blood, alcohol, etc.), from spirit (n.). The meaning "carry off or away secretly" (as though by supernatural agency) is first recorded 1660s.

in my simple thinking, spiritual would mean something like - a feeling / a desire / being energised / - to be activity engaged in, or with, a person / place / idea / belief / situation,
whether at rest or at work?

i think science quite often explains the 'how' of things very well, yet still changes the 'how' quite often - this is right and good in the scientific method.

and spirituality sometimes explains the 'why' of things.... things that scienific method is inadequate for or questions it is not suited to - like, "do you think the sunrise is beautiful?" and "this pie tastes wonderfull!"

When people discuss and attempt to define what a word means, i believe that we are carrying out a very necessary process of understanding each other....?

So, rather than the word 'spiritual' being a nonsense term - it has a meaning that can be researched and understood - just like a scientist would do... and discussed as is happening a little here.
There seems no reason to 'avoid' using such a seemingly useful term?

i think perhaps that advice regarding use of words should be left to the people in the discussion -

Maybe the term 'athiest' would be better avoided...

atheist (n.) 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).

The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]​

atheism (n.) 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god" (see atheist). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." Ancient Greek atheotes meant "ungodliness."


Interestingly, i think there can only be a 'syncretic world-view' in life with external influence.... i may be wrong on that tho

For example in posts on the forum we ask the question, "how do you do _______ ?" or we state how we do _______. (and many other questions tooo!)
IF we are to learn, then it is in a syncretic framework, where our present thoughts, methods and worldview are open to change / addition / subtraction / mixing.

The coming together in peace and community (mixture / reconcilliation / union) of people (pagan / atheist / christian / muslim / a.n.other ) is one of the fundementals of bushcraft, is it not?
Surely, community life is not primarily scientific, it is spiritual ?

Without being 'syncretic', neither athiests, pagans or any other people group can survive...?

So, is the term syncretic is to be avoided...?

syncretism (n.) "reconciliation of different beliefs," 1610s, from Modern Latin syncretismus (David Pareus, 1615), from Greek synkretismos "union of communities," from synkretizein "to combine against a common enemy," from syn- "together" (see syn-) + second element of uncertain origin. One theory connects it with kretismos "lying," from kretizein "to lie like a Cretan;" another connects it with the stem of kerannynai "to mix, blend;" krasis "mixture."




Hey, any more thoughts guys?
Anyone prefer scientific bushcraft to spiritual bushcraft?
Anyone prefer to be both like me?
anyone prefer just plain bushcraft? (is that possible for a thinking or sentient life form...?)

Did any of that make any sense whatsoever....?

austin

 

[santaman2000]

.....HOWEVER - if viewed from a human morality standpoint (and lets assume I'm talkingabout current Western morality values) , it is undoubtedly evil - after all, surely most moral people would be against torturing an animal to death over an extended period (plenty of nature videos showing predators eating prey whilst it is still alive.....

I see you've never eaten seafood around the Gulf of Mexico. Particulary Stone Crab claws:

Fishery
Prepared Florida stone crab claws


The Florida stone crab is usually fished near jetties, oyster reefs or other rocky areas, just as for blue crabs. The bodies of these crabs are relatively small and so are rarely eaten, but the claws (chelae), which are large and strong enough to break an oyster's shell, are considered a delicacy. Harvesting is accomplished by removing one or both claws from the live animal and returning it to the ocean where it can regrow the lost limb(s). To be kept, claws must be 2.75 inches (70 mm) long, measured from the tips of the immovable finger to the first joint. However, mortality rates are 47% for doubly-amputated crabs and 28% for single amputees.[SUP][4][/SUP] Florida stone crabs are legal for harvest from October 15 until May 15.[SUP][5][/SUP]
The Monterey Bay Aquarium has given the Florida stone crab fishery its highest rating of "Best Choice" for maintaining high fishing standards and working hard to keep the stone crab a viable fishery.[SUP][6][/SUP]


Mind you the article isn't completey accurate. You can't harvest BOTH claws and expect the crab to live to grow new ones. You have to leave her one to eat with.

 

[rg598]

I find it hilarious how everyone has their little bone to pick in this argument, and they keep beating the drum no matter how irrelevant it may be to the original discussion. Are we actually arguing over whether "nature" is more cruel than people? Are we actually grading the cruelty of a pack of coyote tearing apart a deer to that of a cow being slaughtered on a farm, or any variation for that matter? Would one being 90% cruel as opposed to the other one being 80% cruel make "nature" better than people or the other way around? Would any three page lecture on semantics change the reality of any of it?

And ultimately, why do we feel the need to justify our answer to the original question of whether or not we feel a spiritual connection to nature, and why do we have to prove the other side wrong? I don't feel a spiritual connection to nature, and I get as annoyed as anyone else when those who do look down on me because of it, just like I'm sure those who believe they have such a connection get frustrated when their beliefs are called into question. Ultimately, some people are open to polite debate on the subject, but most are not. In such circumstances, I simply ignore their writings.

I'm happy to have people believe all sorts of things with which I disagree as long as they don't spend all their time on the soapbox preaching about it. Then I might throw a jab or two.

I'll cover the spread on how many more posts it takes to close this thread.

 

[Bushwhacker]

This is ace! Just so long as nobody gets all hissy it's perfectly legit. First person to 'feel' offended is a ruinous pleb and a big crybaby GO!