I still don’t buy the “slasher movie” framing of nature at all, and the only function 'pleasant lies' serves here is just low effort dismissal. :shrug:
Alas, I'm ceding ground by even arguing within your chosen framing. It's all very self defeating.
Alas, I'm ceding ground by even arguing within your chosen framing. It's all very self defeating.
The “pleasant lies” mostly involve pretending about meaning, and avoiding thinking about huge scales. That’s the lovecraftian bit. Large-scale reality dwarfs and overwhelms us. We eke out sanity by ignoring it, by even being able to forget about or never thoughtfully engage with it.
My point is just that I largely agree with the other poster on the “nature of nature” as it were, but still find insight in the quoted passages. I don’t think they demand we regard nature as particularly safe or easy, for them to work.
There’s an ancient debate over whether wild animals age in the way humans do, or indeed at all. Of course they do, but this isn’t at all obvious since few wild animals live long enough to die of age, or even long enough for aging effects to become obvious.