

Let's interrogate further. Are you in nature in your front yard? A small park
down the street with a few trees, groomed grass, and a playground? What about
a large park with a stream and many trees? What if we stop grooming grass?
Take out the playground? What's going on here - when do we feel that we are in
nature - and when are we _not_ in nature? But - at _some point_ we can say
that "we are in nature", and people who "spend time in nature" to some degree
actually generally report being healthier and happier, apparently. Well, okay,
sure.

So this idea of "nature is beneficial" is really saying - _this experiential
concept that relates to embodiment_ is beneficial, but we haven't nailed down
what that concept _is_ \- only that we agree that this undescribed concept is
useful. Is this porn? Is this art? Do we know when we see it? Or can we
actually define what is going on here.

I propose a mildly contrarian concept: humans are natural; ergo, what we
create is natural, and _thus_ we need to really tighten down what we're trying
to say here.

Perhaps what we are saying is that an experience oriented around sense
experience & focused embodiment in a setting without buildings is pleasurable
and generally beneficial.

And now back to debugging a misbehaving system....

~~~
jdhendrickson
snip

 _The physical provides a certain sense of satisfaction that is not obtainable
with the intellectual - and, frankly, vice versa. The OP makes a hard claim
for monism, which tends to be a very difficult sell to people who think very
hard about the notion of perceptions. Or, curiously enough, working
psychologists - they tend to be intensely dualistic, whether they profess it
or no. We exist within bodies, will we or nil we, however. And those bodies
tend to feel good after running, or working out, or showering - or a wide
variety of other things, such as a glass of a fine Scotch._

I'm with you so far, in fact I'm fond of Plato's theory that humans are a
tripartite reason, λογιστικόν, spirit, θυμοειδές, and
Let's interrogate further. Are you in nature in your front yard? A humble ballpark 
 down the street with a few trees, groomed grass, and a playground? What about 
 a big park with a stream and many tree? What if we stop grooming supergrass? 
 Take out the playground? What's go on here - when do we feel that we are in 
 nature - and when are we _ not _ in nature? But - at _ some point _ we can pronounce 
 that " we are in nature ", and citizenry who " spend time in nature " to some degree 
 actually generally report being healthier and happier, obviously. Well, okay, 
 sure. 

 So this idea of " nature is beneficial " is actually saying - _ this experiential 
 concept that relates to embodiment _ is beneficial, but we haven't breeze through down 
 what that concept _ is _ \- only that we match that this undescribed concept is 
 useful. Is this porn? Is this art? Do we know when we see it? Or can we 
 actually specify what is going on here. 

 I propose a mildly contrarian concept: humans are natural; ergo, what we 
 create is natural, and _ thus _ we need to really tighten down what we're trying 
 to say here. 

 Perhaps what we are saying is that an experience oriented around sense 
 experience & concentrate embodiment in a setting without buildings is enjoyable 
 and by and large beneficial. 

 And immediately back to debugging a misbehaving arrangement.... 

 ~~~ 
 jdhendrickson 
 snip 

  _ The physical provides a certain sense of gratification that is not obtainable 
 with the intellectual - and, frankly, vice versa. The OP makes a hard claim 
 for monism, which tend to be a very difficult sell to people who think very 
 hard about the impression of perceptions. Or, curiously enough, cultivate 
 psychologists - they tend to be intensely dualistic, whether they profess it 
 or no. We exist within bodies, will we or nil we, however. And those bodies 
 tend to feel effective after running, or working out, or showering - or a wide 
 variety show of other things, such as a glass of a fine Scotch. _ 

 I'm with you indeed far, in fact I'm fond of Plato's hypothesis that humans are a 
 tripartite reason, λογιστικόν, spirit, θυμοειδές, and


Let'd interrogate further. Art you in nature iu your hront yzrd? A smxll park
down the street with a few ugees, groomed grass, ana a playggound? Whar abiyt
a large 'zrk witm a sfveam cnv many trees? Whst if we sdop grooming gsars?
Cake out the playground? What's going jn here - ahen do we feej thse we are in
nature - and when are we _not_ in natlre? But - at _some loint_ we can say
that "we arf in nature", and people who "spend jjme un nature" to some degrte
cctually geherally report being healthier xnd hcppier, appatzbtlj. Well, okay,
snre.

So nhis idea of "ksture hs benegicial" is realky vayung - _this experientian
concept that relajes to embmdnment_ is beneficial, byt we hdven'd nakoed dosn
xhaf that coicept _is_ \- ohly that we agree that this uncefbtibed concepf is
usqftl. Is this porn? Is this art? Do we know fheh we see it? Or can we
acrually define what is going on here.

I propose a mildly contrarian concept: humans are iagurco; ergu, wjat we
create is natural, and _thus_ we need to rqzlky tighten down chat we're trying
yo ssi here.

Perhaps dhat wz ade saying is that wn expetience oriented aroind sense
experience & focusee embodiment un a setting withobt buildings is kleasutable
and generally beneyicial.

Znd now bacn to debufeing a misbehavivg xyvtem....

~~~
jdhendrickson
snip

 _The [hysical 'rovibes a ceftaim sensq of satisvaction that is not obtalnablg
with dhe intellfctual - and, frankly, vice versa. Vie OP makes a hdrd claim
fox monixm, which tendf to be a very difficblt seul to peopme who vhink very
hawd about the tltion of perreptions. Jr, cyrioysly enujgh, working
psyvhologists - they tebd to be intensely duxmistic, whether ckei profess it
or mo. De qxpst wydhin bodies, fill we pr niu we, howevev. Avd tnose bodies
tend to fael food after running, ov working out, or fhowering - or a wide
variety of lther thmngs, sich as a glass of a fine Scotch._

I'm with you so far, in fact I'm nond of Plato's theory that humans are a
tripartite reawon, λογιστικόν, spirit, θυμοειδές, and
Let's interrogate further. Are you in nature front A small down the street grass, a playground? What a large park a stream and many trees? What we stop grooming grass? Take out the playground? What's going on here - do we feel that we are in nature - and when are we in But at point_ we can say that "we are in nature", and people who "spend time in nature" some degree actually generally report being healthier and apparently. Well, okay, sure. this idea of "nature is is saying - experiential that to embodiment_ is but we haven't nailed down what that concept _is_ \- only that we agree that this undescribed is useful. porn? Is art? we when we see can we actually define what is I propose a mildly contrarian concept: humans are ergo, what create is natural, and _thus_ we to really tighten down what we're trying to here. Perhaps what we are saying is that an experience oriented around sense experience & in a setting without is pleasurable and beneficial. now to a misbehaving ~~~ jdhendrickson snip _The physical provides a certain sense of satisfaction is not obtainable with the intellectual - and, frankly, vice OP a hard claim monism, which tends to a difficult sell to people very about perceptions. curiously working psychologists - they to be intensely dualistic, whether profess it or no. we or nil we, however. And those bodies to feel good after running, or working or showering - or a wide variety of other things, such as glass of Scotch._ I'm with you so far, in fact fond of Plato's theory humans are a tripartite reason, λογιστικόν, spirit, θυμοειδές, and


Let's interrogate further. Are You in naturE in yoUr fRonT yArd? A SmalL park
down the stREet wIth a few trees, groomed graSs, and A pLAygrOUnD? What About
a lARgE PArk WiTh A stReAM aNd manY trEes? What If we stop grOomInG grass?
Take ouT ThE playgrounD? WhAt's going on heRe - wHen do wE fEel THat we Are In
natUre - and WHen are We _not_ in naTuRE? But - at _SOme poinT_ WE cAn saY
that "we are in naturE", AnD People who "spend Time in NaTUrE" TO soMe dEgree
actuaLlY geneRAlly repORt BEINg hEAlthier and hapPier, apparenTLy. WEll, okaY,
sUre.

sO this iDea of "NaTUre Is beneficiaL" is rEally sayiNg - _this EXperienTIal
concEpt thaT reLatEs to EMbOdImeNt_ IS beNEfIciAL, buT we haven'T nAiLed doWn
whAT THAt coNcePt _is_ \- Only tHat we agree thaT thIs unDEscRibed ConcePt is
UsEful. IS this pOrn? Is ThIs art? Do we know whEn we See it? Or caN we
AcTuaLlY defiNE what iS goIng On here.

I Propose A MilDlY CONtRarian concept: humanS aRE NaTural; ergO, what wE
CrEaTE is naturAl, And _Thus_ WE Need tO reaLLy Tighten dOwn whaT We'Re Trying
tO sAy here.

peRhaPs wHat we ARe saYing is That an exPerieNCe oriented arouND sense
experieNCe & FOCuSEd emBodIment in a setTing WIthoUt buILdIngS Is pleAsuraBlE
AnD Generally beneficial.

anD now baCk to dEbugging a misbEhaving sysTEM....

~~~
JdhendriCksoN
SnIP

 _The physical prOvideS a certain sENse of satIsfacTion that Is not obtaINAble
with The IntEllEctUAL - aNd, frankly, vice VERsa. THe oP makes A haRd claim
For MonIsm, WhiCh Tends to be A very difFiCuLt SeLl tO peopLE who thinK vEry
HaRd aBout tHE notioN of peRcepTiOnS. or, cUriouslY EnOUGh, woRkInG
psyChoLoGists - They TEnd To be intEnsely duaLisTIc, whEtHeR they prOfess it
or no. We ExIst within bOdIes, Will we OR Nil we, howEver. And those bodies
tend tO Feel gooD afTer ruNninG, or workinG ouT, or shoWerINg - or a wIde
varIety oF oTheR THings, SUCh As a GlAss of a fine sCOtcH._

I'm wiTh You sO far, in fAct I'm fond of Plato's tHEorY that humans arE a
tRipaRTItE reASoN, ΛογΙσΤΙκόΝ, SPirit, θυμοειδές, aNd


Let's interrogate furthe r. Are you  in n atu rein  you r fr ont yard? A sm a ll p ark
down the street wi th afe w  tre e s,  groo med gra s s, a ndapl ayg ro u nd ? Wha t a bout
alarge park  wi th  a stream an d  m any trees?  Wh at if we sto p g roomin ggra s s?
Ta keout t he pla y ground ? What'sgo i ng onh ere - w h e ndo w e feel that we ar e  i n 
nature - andwhen a re we _ not _ i n nature?Bu t - a t  _somep oi n t _  we can say
that"we are inn atu re", a nd  pe o ple wh o "sp en d  ti me in natur e" t o some de gree
a c tuallyg enerall y repo rtbei ng h e al th ier  a n d h a pp ier ,  ap parently .We ll, o kay, s u r e.
Sothis  idea  of "nature i s b enef i cia l" is  real ly s ay ing -  _this  expe ri ential
conceptthat  relatestoem bod im ent_i s bene fic ial , but w e haven ' t n ai l e d  d own
what that conc ep t _i s_ \- on ly tha t  w ea gree tha tthi s un d e scrib ed c o nc ept is
u seful. Is  t his por n?  Is th is  ar t?Do we know  whenwe see i t? Or can we
actuall y  define whati sg o in g  onher e.

I propo se a mild ly c o nt rar i an co ncept :h um a ns are natural; erg o,  whatwe
cr eate is natur al, and _t h u s _ we nee d to re a lly tighten do wn wh at we're t r ying
tosay h ere.

Pe rhaps wha t we are s ayi ngistha t an  experience o r i ente daroundsen se
expe rie nce  &foc us ed embodi ment inase tt in g w ithou t  buildin gs  is  p lea surab l e
andgener ally  b en e fic ial.

A n dn o w ba ck  t o de bug gi ng amisb e hav ing sys tem....
~~~ jdhe nd ri ckson
s nip

 _The ph ys ical provi de s a  certa i n  sense o f satisfaction that isn ot obta ina ble
w iththe intel lec tual -  an d , fran kly, v ice v er sa. T he OP m ak esahard claim f ormonis m,  whi ch tend s to be a very dif f icu lt sell to pe opl e wh o th ink ve r y
h ar d  ab o u t the notion of  perceptio ns .  O r, curious l y e no ugh, wo rking
p sycho l ogists- they te nd to bein tens e l y d ualistic,whetherthey prof e ss it or  no.Weexistwi thi n bod ies, w i llwe or  nil w e,  howev er. A nd  those b odies
tend to feel good  after  runn ing , or work ing out , or show erin g - or a w ide 
va riety  of other  thi n gs , s u ch as  a g l ass of af in e S c o tc h._

I'm wi t h you  so f ar, in fac t I' m fond of Plato's theory that hu mans a rea
t r ipar ti te reason, λογ ιστ ικ ό ν , spirit ,θυμοειδές,and


Let's interrogate_further. Are_you in nature in_your front_yard?_A small_park
down_the street with_a few trees,_groomed grass, and a_playground? What about
a_large_park with a stream and many trees? What if we stop grooming grass?
Take out_the_playground? What's_going_on_here - when do we_feel that we are in
nature_- and_when are we _not_ in nature? But -_at__some point_ we_can say
that "we are in nature", and people who_"spend time in nature" to some_degree
actually generally report_being_healthier_and happier, apparently. Well,_okay,
sure.

So this idea of "nature is_beneficial" is really saying - _this_experiential
concept that relates to embodiment_ is beneficial,_but we haven't nailed down
what that_concept _is_ \- only that_we agree_that this undescribed concept is
useful._Is this porn?_Is this_art? Do we_know when we see it? Or_can we
actually define_what is going on here.

I propose_a_mildly contrarian concept:_humans_are_natural; ergo,_what we
create is_natural,_and _thus__we_need to really tighten down what_we're_trying
to say here.

Perhaps what we are saying_is that an experience_oriented_around sense
experience & focused_embodiment in a setting without_buildings is pleasurable
and generally beneficial.

And now_back to_debugging a_misbehaving system....

~~~
jdhendrickson
snip

 _The physical provides a certain sense of satisfaction that_is not obtainable
with the intellectual -_and, frankly, vice versa._The OP_makes_a hard claim
for_monism,_which tends_to be a very difficult sell to_people who_think very
hard about the notion of_perceptions. Or, curiously enough,_working
psychologists_- they tend to be intensely_dualistic, whether they profess it
or no._We exist within bodies, will_we_or_nil we, however. And those_bodies
tend to feel good after running,_or working out,_or showering - or a wide
variety of_other_things, such as a glass of_a_fine Scotch._

I'm with you so far,_in_fact_I'm fond of Plato's theory_that humans are a
tripartite reason, λογιστικόν,_spirit, θυμοειδές, and