#8220;is there anything truly artificial?#8221;
if manmade is synthetic#8230;
and technology is manmade,
and man is from nature,
and nature is nature
but nature only produces nature
so nature is man, for the primordial soup made man and all ingredients man can make things with.
so nature is man.
and nature is technology.
and nature is synthetic, is artificial.
and all these words classify a process of nature, which in human language is not nature because of our logic, but really, it#8217;s still nature.
the human#8217;s definition of nature is flawed.� we are not separate through this definition, #8220;the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creation#8221;
the definition is flawed on human cynicism.� how are we different from the ant? the bee? the ape?� they are animals, they are nature.� did an evolutionary downfall or uprising occur once we separated ourselves from defining what we were not?� a trend which i see in today#8217;s world fueling racism and other forms of hatred.
so nature is man.
and everything is natural.
if our function is to think, reproduce, and have free-will to make other decisions- to live our individual lives, how are we different from time and space.
for we defined time and space through our perception.
perhaps we are the mitochondria?� the lysosomes and peroxisomes?� the endoplasmic reticulum of the earth, the nucleus?� for whatever relationship we have with the earth, we are still part of it.
we are an organism which helps shape the fate of the earth and whatever tip of tentacles reach out in the universe. � our choices will always impact our future, yes, ever miniscule as they are to our children, but, also, the course of time.
and the expansion of time.
#8220;on time#8221; :
and the expansion of time equals death.
makes us farther apart from our core selves in the past, when we took consciousness.
time is expanding and thus we are expanding too.� are we becoming slower and #8216;older#8217; because we are further away and expanding from our core of birth; of energy.
then, it#8217;s not our bodies which are dying, but the force on how our bodies (energy, atoms, molecules) interact with now.
for a hint of validity to this question, we must search for patterns. Nature contains patterns, trends, present throughout earth and space or somewhere else in time.
and if where in time; past, present, or future depend to their data/findings, and if time exists outside a human#8217;s mind, or a mortal being on earth.
for me, time is a point, a sphere, a particle,� in a malleable tube growing ever so slightly larger than it was before.� the point is a force, it sucks the tube in wherever it be.� The tube is space.
we are differentiating, we are changing into something new, and based upon our definitions, time is passing, we are evolving, we are growing, we are multiplying#8230; we could be trying to defeat time?
we are doing the base things our cells do, we mimic our inner functions.� how can we not apply these rules to a habitat which fuels us?� genesis. True, there will be critical differences, but the base ideas of the universe should not.
we feed off of energy, and we create energy for others.
on a larger thought, what do we supply energy for outside our earth?� what feeds off us?� could we be fuel for existence at a further circumference of the tube, a selected space, further in time.� is there a such thing as predestination.
for that to be true, this point, this particle, exploding, expanding, rotating sphere idles in the tube, interchanging reactions until justified as they see fit, (we perceive it as free-will) that the cycle is an equation, a recipe, for what is meant to be, and must be an infinite pattern; recipe which ingredients are constantly added(and is never cooked).� How did the pattern start?� The base organism (or #8216;it#8217;) was born, or the smaller organism (#8220;it#8221;) grew??
could we use sociology to depict natural functions of existence?� our purpose already exists, for if we weren#8217;t doing what we were meant to be doing, we wouldn#8217;t exist much longer, or if they were no longer a purpose for us.
which hurts the heart and my admiration for other species we are killing.� if we are killing the earth, are we meant to? for it has provided us for every means to do so.� sustainability will create a constant and perhaps lead to more answers, but is our species meant to do so?
will the desire of feeling this life, having consciousness, always exist?� will the consciousness always have power?� it#8217;s not the thought of death which scares me, it#8217;s the thought of no thought, the inner voice gone. �possession�of this energy fuels the thought of religion.�
there is this popular theory where heaven is a dream.� eternity is all you have in it.� a 10-15 minute dream slowed due to death- while the earth takes back what it rented. I hope when i go, i will have a dream of loving all the people i love once more, as if i were saying goodnight, i#8217;ll see you in the morning.� returning to my bedroom, i see a plot of dirt where daisies and lilies of the valley grow and birch tree leaves fall, dirt my pillow and grass my blanket, a quilt turned down where i can snuggle in, curl up, roll over and fall into my deep sleep.
i find this thought an october language.� autumnal in nature. Perhaps it is the month of death and i view death somewhat beautiful.� somewhat pleasant, as it provides life with catharsis, an abscission of apos;what was#8217; to birth apos;what is#8217;.� it fuels us to view things which exist outside ourselves and teaches us to love.� for if it weren#8217;t for time, there would be no death, and if there were no death, would we love?
breast freckle, famous still life drawings, famous still life painter, famous still life painters.
