Kirath's provocative essay kicked off quite an interesting discussion.
First of all I, too, will stress that my views are those of me alone,
and they are most assuredly not the views of any organization I am
involved in.

What Kirath did, in my opinion, was to project a certain body of ideas
upon physical processes found in Nature, with the intention of
clarifying the relationship between Nature and said body of ideas. I
agree with the thrust of his essay, but want to stress that it seems to
me The Seven Truths (on which I am anything but an expert) seem rooted
in Nature, and not the other way around. The same may probably be said
of the counterposed philosophy of Good - tendencies towards empathy can
be found in some of the higher animals.

A lot has been made of the non-applicability of the concept of Cruelty
to Nature, and people have stressed they believe cruelty would
necessarily entail the intention to be cruel. I am, actually, not so
sure about that - I believe people can in fact be cruel in a very
unthinking manner. Now, we are by definition conscious of our own
actions as we carry them out, whereas a lion pursuing a deer does not
think by himself: "I am a lion, I am pursuing a deer and I will tear it
apart in a few moments." So, a thug pursuing someone through back
streets in order to rob him and kill him is conscious of himself doing
it at the very moment, and may very well take pleasure from his actions
in a conscious manner. The lion pursuing the deer will undoubtedly exert
some satisfaction as well from his hunting, in his lion-like,
non-conscious manner. There are great differences between predatory
behaviour of humans and of animals - but also big similarities. I think
the discussion on the exact definition of the word 'cruel' obscures to
some extent that we are dealing with very similar behavioural patterns
here.

It will always be said that one cannot apply essentially human concepts
like 'Evil' and 'Good' and 'Cruel' to Nature. And in a strict sense we
cannot - but for the same reason a statement 'Nature is lovely' would be
as senseless as 'Nature is Evil'. All we would have left then is the
statement 'Nature is Nature' which like all tautologies is true, in a
sense, but, let's say, not extremely informative. Because we happen to
observe the world through the filter of our senses and brains, knowledge
of it must necessarily use 'human' concepts to the external world. As
long as one is aware of this, I do not see a problem - and I think
clich�s like 'Nature is not Good or Evil, Nature is just Nature' (which
I confess I have adhered to as well) have really outlived themselves.

I am not an adherent of the Philosophy of Evil. As a Druid, I am a firm
adherent of Neutrality, whereas I personally lean towards the ideas of
Good. But I have seen real Neutrality become an anachronism in the
Forestal World during my lifetime - a position which at the moment does
not even exist. To work towards re-creating an independent 'Neutral'
Forestal position, we can either disclaim any association between Nature
and the opposite philosophies - or we can look at Nature from both
sides, and try, departing from there, to find a middle road. For various
reasons, I believe the second alternative is more fertile at this time,
and I believe Kirath's essay is a valuable start.

N.

Penned by my hand on the 22nd of Scarlatan, in the year 354 AF.