3 ms·

Indeed, and Alan Watts’ further point was that we come out of this world, not into it. In modern western societies we learn that we born into this world, and t

Indeed, and Alan Watts’ further point was that we come out of this world, not into it. In modern western societies we learn that we born into this world, and that our mind, body and soul are seperate entities. Whereas other cultures and philosophies consider that we are part of the world, that we are born out of it but still connected. The speeches for Watts are really about the increasingly unhealthy abstraction from this planet that is shaping our thinking. Ideas that we can and should live on Mars or grow and eat artificial meat are just bonkers really. I’m all for science and advancement, but being restoring our connection to this planet is the answer. :-)

jschveibinz 3y ago
You had me until that last paragraph went off the rails. …live on Mars or grow and eat artificial meat… Not sure what your train of thought was there.
- firecall 3y ago
  LOL - no, a bit random. I was typing on my phone and running out of time. Broadly, it was a half baked thought that our Western culture heavily promotes ideas that are anti-Earth in a way. Ideas for instance where Elon Musk is talking about saving humanity by getting to Mars, or creating artificial meat as a solution to our food crises. These ideas suggest that the solution is to engineer our way out of a problem of our own making. The problem rhetoric being that Earth cannot support us. This runs counter to the thinking that we are bound to this Earth because we are part of it. We are one and the same. So we should respect it and work with it. Watts talks about seeing the Californian hills in the 60s, being carved up and houses being wedged in to the landscape in an artificial way. Where no consideration is given to working with the land, instead we try to dominate and shape it. Like I say, it's a half baked idea that I'm not really expressing very well I don't think! :-) I'd love others to straighten me out, or put me on the right path! :-) I did laugh a while back when in one of Watts' talks he mentioned Plastics being the solution to Deforestation and Paper Wastage... Engineering a solution to deforestation using plastics didn't work out so well for us. Fast forward 50 years and it turns out that Humans just began using more of everything! Like building roads to reduce traffic and you end up just promoting more car usage! :-)
  - TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
    Thank you for writing this.
  - jschveibinz 3y ago
    Thanks for the follow up. I enjoy a lot of what Alan Watts said. Not all, but a lot. Cheers.
haswell 3y ago
These are such great speeches, and this thread is reminding me that I need to go back and listen to them again. They’re highly entertaining, and also deeply thought provoking. I know they helped shift how I see myself relative to the world quite a bit.
ycombinete 3y ago
Ashes to ashes, funk to funky.
lelanthran 3y ago
> In modern western societies we learn that we born into this world, and that our mind, body and soul are seperate entities. > Whereas other cultures and philosophies consider that we are part of the world, that we are born out of it but still connected. > The speeches for Watts are really about the increasingly unhealthy abstraction from this planet that is shaping our thinking. What makes you call one of those abstractions unhealthy, and the other (presumably) healthy? IOW, why do you feel one is more valid than the other? To me, they are either both equally valid or equally invalid.

jschveibinz 3y ago

You had me until that last paragraph went off the rails. …live on Mars or grow and eat artificial meat… Not sure what your train of thought was there.

firecall 3y ago
LOL - no, a bit random. I was typing on my phone and running out of time. Broadly, it was a half baked thought that our Western culture heavily promotes ideas that are anti-Earth in a way. Ideas for instance where Elon Musk is talking about saving humanity by getting to Mars, or creating artificial meat as a solution to our food crises. These ideas suggest that the solution is to engineer our way out of a problem of our own making. The problem rhetoric being that Earth cannot support us. This runs counter to the thinking that we are bound to this Earth because we are part of it. We are one and the same. So we should respect it and work with it. Watts talks about seeing the Californian hills in the 60s, being carved up and houses being wedged in to the landscape in an artificial way. Where no consideration is given to working with the land, instead we try to dominate and shape it. Like I say, it's a half baked idea that I'm not really expressing very well I don't think! :-) I'd love others to straighten me out, or put me on the right path! :-) I did laugh a while back when in one of Watts' talks he mentioned Plastics being the solution to Deforestation and Paper Wastage... Engineering a solution to deforestation using plastics didn't work out so well for us. Fast forward 50 years and it turns out that Humans just began using more of everything! Like building roads to reduce traffic and you end up just promoting more car usage! :-)
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  Thank you for writing this.
- jschveibinz 3y ago
  Thanks for the follow up. I enjoy a lot of what Alan Watts said. Not all, but a lot. Cheers.

haswell 3y ago

These are such great speeches, and this thread is reminding me that I need to go back and listen to them again. They’re highly entertaining, and also deeply thought provoking. I know they helped shift how I see myself relative to the world quite a bit.

ycombinete 3y ago

Ashes to ashes, funk to funky.

lelanthran 3y ago

> In modern western societies we learn that we born into this world, and that our mind, body and soul are seperate entities. > Whereas other cultures and philosophies consider that we are part of the world, that we are born out of it but still connected. > The speeches for Watts are really about the increasingly unhealthy abstraction from this planet that is shaping our thinking. What makes you call one of those abstractions unhealthy, and the other (presumably) healthy? IOW, why do you feel one is more valid than the other? To me, they are either both equally valid or equally invalid.