|
From Worship to Identity The Natural Context and
Logical Necessity of the Druid’s Aphorism By Finn Yesterday’s
druid says: ‘I worship nature.’ This aphorism is not a poetic escalation, a mystical
bravado, nor a modern provocation. It is the logical consequence of a
change in descriptive resolution applied to the same natural reality.
Nothing external is added; nothing essential is removed. What shifts is the mode
of orientation within nature itself. Properly understood, the aphorism marks a transition
from external relation to internal identification, from handed-down
orientation to self-located coherence. It distinguishes not
between belief systems but between two structurally different ways a human
system can be situated within the natural order. This distinction is
captured by the contrast between tradition and the recovered inverse
term prodition. I. Nature as the Only Operational Context The
modern druid’s aphorism presupposes a minimal and uncompromising natural
context: Nature is
sufficient (i.e.
“No God but Nature!”) There is
no operational remainder outside nature. Every phenomenon—stars, storms,
organisms, thought, language, ritual, mathematics—arises within natural
constraints and unfolds according to natural processes. No appeal to a
supra-natural realm is required for description, explanation, or continuity. This
position is neither reductive nor dismissive. It does not deny meaning,
value, intelligence, or reverence. It simply insists that these are natural
phenomena, not imports from elsewhere. Within
this context: ·
Nature is not an object among others. ·
Nature is the total field of occurrence. ·
Any observer is necessarily within what is
observed. This
premise already places strain on any model that preserves a permanent
subject–object (i.e. dualist) separation
between “human” and “nature.” II. “I Worship Nature”: The Logic
of External Relation The
statement “I
worship nature” expresses
a coherent and historically stable orientation. Worship
presupposes: 1. a locus
of agency (the worshipper), 2. a locus
of power or origin (the worshipped), 3. a
maintained distance between the two. In this
configuration, nature appears as: ·
prior, ·
larger, ·
opaque, ·
authoritative. This
orientation is not an error. It is an adaptive descriptive strategy.
When the generative processes of the world are not yet transparent, reverence
takes the form of address. The system stabilises itself by placing meaning,
power, and continuity outside itself. Historically,
this posture has produced: ·
ritualised attention, ·
conservation of ecological limits, ·
humility before forces not yet understood. In this
sense, tradition functions as a carrier mechanism. It hands down
relational forms that preserve coherence when direct self-location is not yet
available. III. The Compression of Nature and the Collapse of
Distance The
aphorism turns when accumulated insight removes the need for distance. Three
converging recognitions are decisive: 1. Biological Continuity The human
organism is not an exception within nature but an expression of it.
Metabolism, perception, cognition, and communication are evolutionary
developments continuous with earlier forms of life. There is
no non-natural faculty by which humans step outside
nature to observe it. 2. Cognitive Naturalisation Thought
does not hover above the world. It is an activity of neural tissue embedded
in environmental exchange. Language, ritual, and abstraction are strategies
evolved by nature to manage complexity. Nature,
in the human, reflects upon itself. 3. Ontological Sufficiency Once no
external agent is required to account for order, intelligibility, or
persistence, as in Procedural
Monism, the remaining separation between “observer” and
“nature” becomes descriptive surplus. At this
point, worship becomes structurally redundant—not false, but unnecessary. IV. “I Am Nature”: Identity
as Descriptive Accuracy The
statement “I am
nature” is not
mystical identification with everything. It is a locational claim. It states
that: ·
the processes that generate forests and rivers
also generate bodies and minds, ·
the same constraints apply at every scale, ·
the speaker is a bounded, temporary configuration
of one and the same (for all) generative
field. This
formulation is aligned with classical monism, most clearly articulated by Baruch
Spinoza, whose Deus sive Natura
eliminates the gap between creator and creation without eliminating
necessity, lawfulness, or intelligibility. Likewise,
Heraclitus already denied stable separations when he insisted that
reality is flux governed by logos. What the druid adds is not novelty, but procedural
clarity. “I am nature” is
therefore not an expansion of the self, but a reduction of conceptual
error. V. Tradition and Prodition:
External Carrying vs Internal Realisation The
recovered term prodition is crucial. If tradition
is that which is carried forward unchanged—forms, narratives,
postures—then prodition is that which is carried
through and rendered operational within the individual system. Tradition: ·
stabilises orientation externally, ·
preserves relational distance, ·
sustains worship. Prodition: ·
internalises orientation, ·
collapses unnecessary distance, ·
yields identity. Prodition does not reject tradition.
It completes it. What was once maintained as external guidance becomes
internal competence. The form dissolves into function. Thus the aphorism does not
oppose heritage, as many believe; it metabolises it. VI. Why the Aphorism Is Quietly Radical The shift
from worship to identity is unsettling (for
most) not because it is aggressive, but because it is calm. “I am nature”: ·
removes the need for intermediaries, ·
dissolves permanent dependency, ·
transfers responsibility inward. No
rebellion is required. This is
why the aphorism provokes unease, indeed fear and anger “in some quarters.”
Structures built on perpetual external orientation cannot easily accommodate prodition (i.e.
innovation). Yet the aphorism itself is not confrontational; it is
diagnostic. VII. Ethical and Existential Consequences Once
identity replaces worship, several consequences follow naturally: 1. Ethics becomes
self-regulation within a shared system, not obedience to an external
authority. 2. Reverence remains,
but without kneeling; it expresses itself as care, precision, and restraint. 3. Responsibility intensifies,
since harm to nature is no longer harm to “other.” 4. Humility deepens,
as identity is understood to be temporary, local, and replaceable. 5. Fear (i.e. angst, dread) diminishes,
as birth and death are recognised as phase changes within the same field. None of
these require belief. They follow from accurate placement. VIII. Conclusion: The Aphorism’s Final Compression The
druid’s aphorism is best understood as a compressed ontological update: ·
Worship belongs to relational distance. ·
Identity belongs to descriptive adequacy. ·
Tradition carries orientation. ·
Prodition realises
it. What was
once addressed from outside The
modern druid does not abandon nature, reverence, or meaning. When he says “I am nature”, And once
that location is clear, The Architecture of Transmission |