[ej3]

I've always been mystified by the modern definition of the word 'nature'. The word itself seems to describe a category without definite bounds. No uniform definition of the word seems capable of capturing all the outlying possibilities that the word seems to embody, yet used in context we all seem to be able to agree well enough on how it should be used. When I discovered C.S. Lewis had composed an extensive essay on the Etymology of nature (or kind) in a collection called "Studies in words" - I had to read it. I've read it several times since. It's absolutely fascinating.

In one vein, nature in it's modern form can simply be rationalized simply as 'uncontrived'. In this respect the article is certainly insightful in that even contrived systems can have emergent properties that cannot be contrived, that must be something other than 'man made'. However nature has always had a noble connotation, and emergent complications that are inarguably [poorly controlled / anticipated / understood] that only stand to ultimately reenforce the futility of our ambition will ever be deemed noble.

Nature is saturated with self organized critical systems (much akin to traffic) but I don't know know that we can see ourselves as pebbles in an avalanche, to do so is unkindly.

[gjm11]

Anyone interested in words should read Lewis's "Studies in Words"; it's a wonderful book.

(If you only know Lewis as a Christian apologist and writer of children's fiction, don't be misled; this is C S Lewis the eminent university professor sharing the fruits of his very considerable erudition.)