Spinoza uses the Medieval distinction between natura naturans (nature naturing) and natura naturata (nature natured) but does very little with it. Ralph Waldo Emerson is much bolder in his speculative deployment of this primal distinction. Schopenhauer briefly refers to the distinction hinting that his notion of the Will might stand for nature naturing. Finally, Justus Buchler states: "Nature as ordinality is natura naturans; it is the providing, the engendering condition. Nature as "orders" is natura naturata; it is the provided, the ordinal manifestation, the World's complexes." Metaphysics of Natural Complexes, Second Edition, p.276.
I define nature naturing as: "Nature perennially creating itself out of itself alone," where the stress is, on sheer potency and generative fecundity. For nature in its naturing there can be no teleology, first principle or ground, ultimate substrate, ultimate simples, substance (defined as that which cannot be a predicate of anything else), stasis, architectural form, or order.
These negations leave us very close to Schopenhauer's Will. The Will, read cosmically, is without order or direction. It is the original chaos, pure striving without a striving for, without a to which or a from which--just a will to life. NB It is more accurate to speak of a will to life than of a will to live as the former captures the push and shove of the Will as it objectifies itself under the conditions of space, time and causality.
For me, Schopenhauer's concept of the Will is the least worst analogue to the concept of nature naturing that we have and it can be deployed in a variety of contexts.