The World

[Barbarossa]

Some may be unpleasant upon your eyes or scary... none of it is ugly.

That sounds Blasphemous, no matter what religion you suffer from

S(he)/It did create all of it that way... and for the atheists, they have all evolved and adapted to survive in their environment, to be efficient in what they do.

This is a kind of beauty in itself.

No, this is fucking ugly, no arguments:

[Strangelove]

I've been with uglier guys

[TheDave]

All nature is beautiful, regardless of what it is. The only ugliness in our world is created by man.

That is not to say that man is only capable of creating ugliness. Simply that there would be no ugliness without us.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder

[clocker]

I understand your statement.
I don't agree with it.

"They revelled in the harmony and lived as one with the world, of which they were part. They celebrated the beauty and majesty and built their lives around it. "
To which ancestors are you referring?
At what point did these romanticised ancestors morph into us?

"We have seperated ourselves. We cut nature down and polute it with the smoke from our pyres. We have turned against our mother and now despoil her, like errant children"
"Nature" has, and will continue to, reward one trait above all others- adaptability which leads to survival.
Successfully exploiting one's niche in the ecosystem is not a shortcoming, it is a biological imperative.
Species who fail at this prime directive disappear, those who are successful dominate until a more aggressively adaptable replacement arrives or the ecosystem itself changes (or is changed).

How do you justify arbitrarily placing our species outside the rules/domain of "Nature" as if we sprung, full-fledged, from another continuum?
Did we not arise ( either in seven days or over the span of millenia, take your pick) from the same wellspring as the beatified beaver or the lowly cockroach?

Clockmakers everywhere are curious....

[manker]

Ah but other creatures re-shape the beauty which is already there. They dig a hole, or move a twig or build a dam. We create new materials from the raw. Ugly utilitarian materials.

Our dams are of concrete not of trees, our buildings are of steel, not of mud. We take the beautiful and uglify it to better suit our needs.

Our ancestors were part of nature, that is true. They revelled in the harmony and lived as one with the world, of which they were part. They celebrated the beauty and majesty and built their lives around it.

We have seperated ourselves. We cut nature down and polute it with the smoke from our pyres. We have turned against our mother and now despoil her, like errant children

Why would I expect accountants, clockmakers and telephone engineers to understand this.

It is only a matter of opinion, if I knew an accountant he or she would live up to a rigid stereotype and attempt to use mathematics, no doubt, to explain it thusly:

In the beginning we can agree that all that existed was nature. We can also agree that nature is a positive thing, beauty is a positive thing but ugliness is a negative thing.

As time progresses then the varients of nature become more varied, twisted, even. This is a natural process some call evolution. Genes are added to, divided and multiplied in this process.

Given that a positive thing when multiplied, divided or added to can only remain positive in a world full of positives then the process that allowed modern man to exist must have been beautiful.

If all that exists is nature then all that man does is natural.

If we are to be as rigid as your first post dictates then we can conclude that:

All nature is beautiful => Ugliness cannot exist.




I do not subscribe to that.

[Everose]

All nature is beautiful, regardless of what it is. The only ugliness in our world is created by man.

That is not to say that man is only capable of creating ugliness. Simply that there would be no ugliness without us.

Or maybe the most dangerous ugly is not the ugly which man creates, it is the ugly that exists within man?

[manker]

Just one comma, come on it's not a lot to ask. It would make it much easier to read and understand. That took me three times and I'm not entirely convinced that I know precisely what you mean.

Well, 'but' is a conjunction and was probably used in lieu of a comma, if I read it correctly.

I don't believe a comma is strictly necessary in that sentence.

You do appear to have a bit of a weak spot with the old comma-age, JP

[Strangelove]

I find it to be an excellent tool, for assisting in the easity of communication. I am also a greater fan of however than but. The latter conveying more negative emulsion than the former.

Stops you Glossing over the facts...

[Everose]

I have added the comma, but am having a hard time doing away with the 'but.' (and no, dieting is not the answer) Any suggestions?

[Everose]

Thank you, JP, for your help.