Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, in one sense 'weeds' are simply unwanted or unuseful plants. But this is hardly a terribly useful definition and misses the point of my response to the original post.
Weeds grow wherever they are not wanted. That is what a weed is - an unwanted plant. Even food crops are weeds if they grow when you really wanted a different crop.
His post suggested that weeds grow where humans don't cultivate.
The native forests outside Melbourne are not cultivated. But I can't imagine anyone calling these plants weeds.
Originally posted by amannionAgreed; and that is very well put 🙂
Life has no purpose.
You may as well ask, what is the purpose of a rock? The rock just is. It exists.
Now, we use rocks for things, so we attach purposes to them.
I guess we do the same for our lives. We attach purposes to our lives - and these can change through our lives to. My purpose at the moment is to be a good father for my children and help them ...[text shortened]... to me 10 years ago when I had no children.
But externally imposed purposes?
There are none.
Originally posted by amannionIt is the only useful definition I can think of, and it fits your point perfectly. The native forests outside Melbourne are wanted and therefore not weeds, and therefore he is incorrect - if he was talking generally about all land - but that is not necessarily the case.
Yes, in one sense 'weeds' are simply unwanted or unuseful plants. But this is hardly a terribly useful definition and misses the point of my response to the original post.
I think it was more of a poetic comment with an analogy to farm land. You are taking the analogy further and pointing out that even when we don't work, useful production may still take place.
2 edits
Originally posted by amannionI have yet to read a textbook where trees are regarded as weeds, have you? secondly gardeners spend many hours removing weeds from an already cultivated area. The illustration was of course was made with with reference to the mind and how we 'cultivate', our thoughts.
So, the native forests that surround my city are weeds, is that what you're saying?
When people plant nothing we get communities of plants, usually high in biodiversity. Weeds tend to grown in areas that have been damaged or developed in the past, or where introduced species have no natural controls.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think the Eucalyptus is regarded as a weed in many parts of North America. English Broom is a major problem in some parts of Australia - it's a small tree (or shrub). My point was that it was a dodgy illustration.
I have yet to read a textbook where trees are regarded as weeds, have you? secondly gardeners spend many hours removing weeds from an already cultivated area. The illustration was of course was made with with reference to the mind and how we 'cultivate', our thoughts.
It might be better to avoid the metaphors and tell us what you want to say.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, you're right - I tend to view them as plants that are not native or endemic to a particular area, and grow vigorously with few or no predators or natural controls. But your point is taken ...
It is the only useful definition I can think of, and it fits your point perfectly. The native forests outside Melbourne are wanted and therefore not weeds, and therefore he is incorrect - if he was talking generally about all land - but that is not necessarily the case.
I think it was more of a poetic comment with an analogy to farm land. You are taking ...[text shortened]... further and pointing out that even when we don't work, useful production may still take place.
3 edits
Originally posted by amannionsigh - it would have been better to admit my dear fellow, that no, trees are not regarded as weeds instead of trying to justify you're statement, (we are now on to trees stroke shrubs and with a little luck you may be able to shoehorn some dwarf pine in there as well), the illustration is sound, for it purports to state, that what we cultivate in our minds has a direct correlation on how we view ourselves and our environment and more importantly, how we act in accordance. It was of course never intended to be an edition of gardeners question time, which twithead and you are now trying to make it (perhaps even this is a reflection of a purely materialistic outlook), therefore, if you don't mind i shall continue to use illustrations, for they appeal to the imagination and stimulate thought.
I think the Eucalyptus is regarded as a weed in many parts of North America. English Broom is a major problem in some parts of Australia - it's a small tree (or shrub). My point was that it was a dodgy illustration.
It might be better to avoid the metaphors and tell us what you want to say.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTechnically a tree can be regarded as a weed Rob.
sigh - it would have been better to admit my dear fellow, that no, trees are not regarded as weeds instead of trying to justify you're statement, (we are now on to trees stroke shrubs and with a little luck you may be able to shoehorn some dwarf pine in there as well), the illustration is sound, for it purports to state, that what we cultivate in our ...[text shortened]... shall continue to use illustrations, for they appeal to the imagination and stimulate thought.
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobsigh - its not about trees dear Noobster, but seeing we are being pedantic this morning, i shall revise my statement
Technically a tree can be regarded as a weed Rob.
in the garden, which has no trees or shrubs or dwarf pine or anything remotely resembling the aforementioned, when one plants flower seeds, flowers grow, when one plants nothing, weeds grow.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot pedant, merely informative.
sigh - its not about trees dear Noobster, but seeing we are being pedantic this morning, i shall revise my statement
in the garden, which has no trees or shrubs or dwarf pine, when one plants flower seeds, flowers grow, when one plants nothing, weeds grow.
Originally posted by amannionI suppose the irony of your 'statement' is lost on you, so void of purpose and all. You claim there exists no external purpose for life, but do so by pointing to a rock which derives its purpose by virtue of an external source! Brilliant!
Life has no purpose.
You may as well ask, what is the purpose of a rock? The rock just is. It exists.
Now, we use rocks for things, so we attach purposes to them.
I guess we do the same for our lives. We attach purposes to our lives - and these can change through our lives to. My purpose at the moment is to be a good father for my children and help them ...[text shortened]... to me 10 years ago when I had no children.
But externally imposed purposes?
There are none.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHeh...you're changing the scope of 'external' here! with rocks it is other humans (or creatures that live on Earth) whilst for life it seems to be some otherworldly divine entity...one can (for argument sake) contrive an 'external' purpose to a person's life by alluding to the service they provide for other humans (or creatures); but as ammanion pointed out there is no more purpose to life than there is for rocks. We humans forge our own purpose :]
I suppose the irony of your 'statement' is lost on you, so void of purpose and all. You claim there exists no external purpose for life, but do so by pointing to a rock which derives its purpose by virtue of an external source! Brilliant!