Alan Watts - Cosmic Network (FULL 3 ½ HOUR RARE LECTURE)
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
This channel is dedicated to the great thinkers / writers / activists / artists / movers-n-shakers of the late 20th and early 21st century, including documentaries on cultural topics such as psychedelics, and lectures and talks by many counter-culture figures such as Ram Dass (Formerly Richard Alpert) Alan Watts, Timothy Leary, Allen Ginsberg, Terrence McKenna, Abbie Hoffman, Aldous Huxley, Timothy Ferriss, Maharaji, Jack Kerouac, William Burroughs, K. Salisberns, Malcolm X, Felini, Akira Kurosawa, Andy Warhol, Basquiat, StrangeFlow, Salvador Dali, and many more to come in the future! It is not necessary to agree with every single thing a person says to learn from them; which is an important thing to remember. Everyone has something to say, and some have a GREAT DEAL to say, and sometimes it's best to just sit back and hear them out for awhile, laying judgement aside for a moment and opening your mind to try to understand different perspectives of the world.
Comments
-
Is this not what IS, that which is ISNESS
-
Alan Watts repairs the damage that western culture has done to the psyche.
Also is it just me or is there a sqrt(2) symbol in front of her eye in the picture? -
45:40 multi dimensional spiderweb with dewdrops... (and Alan Watts mentioned what this made me think of a bit after)
Look at the math of it for a second. 2 dewdrops need 1 dimension so that every dewdrop can see every other dewdrop. That's just 2 points connected with a line.
3 dewdrops need 2 dimensions (a triangle exists in 2 dimensions and has 3 vertices).
4 dewdrops need 3 dimensions (it's a tetrahedron), if you are to see every edge fully from every vertice. You can connect 4 points to each other without crossing any lines, in 2 dimensions, but the 4th point has to then go somewhere on the plane made by the other 3 points. If you do 4 dewdrops in 2 dimensions, then (I conjecture) you cannot draw a line from any dewdrop to anywhere on any other edge without passing through one of the other edges in all instances. So you need (I conjecture) 3 dimensions for 4 dewdrops, and then you CAN draw a line from any dewdrop to any of the planes made by any combination of the other 3 dewdrops without intersecting any other planes along the way.
I'm not sure how many dewdrops you can put in 3 dimensions so that you can do this (ie, see the entirety of every plane made by any collection of 3 dewdrops from a given dewdrop), but I believe the most is 4. So then I suppose 5 dewdrops need 4 dimensions at least, and in that case you can now see every hyperplane made by the 4 remaining dewdrops when you choose any of the 5 dewdrops. And so the pattern would continue, I assume. Where this goes I don't know, but if I imply the universe and the universe implies me and there is no difference, maybe there are really just THAT many dimensions? However many "fundamental dewdrops" or points or things or thinks or ideas or events or whatever discrete word you want to use to divide up the universe, the universe has one less dimension than the number of events. I don't want to get lost in the english because I could say "we can only think in 3 dimensions and therefore there are 4 things in the universe from our point of view, and those are clearly life, death, me, and you", but that's just idle banter. I have a hunch english can't do it, english can't explain the universe, no matter how precise our english is, no matter how big a book of the laws of science we write, because it takes a man to understand the words and a man can't remember a book that big all at once. So really, you can't control the universe the way you think you control a car, or a boss controls his employees, or a computer controls a mechanical machine. I don't know if I understand the point about the dewdrops and the spiderweb but if I am what the universe does and I can't control what the universe does then I can't control myself either, which doesn't make sense to me. But then there was also the case hinted at by Alan Watts that I DO in fact control everything all at once, and this point of view is just as valid as the other one. And going back to the dewdrop thing, is it any good to follow the pattern back and say 1 dewdrop needs no dimensions? And that every time the dewdrop divides itself and has a new child dewdrop, it unfortunately adds one more dimension? So in trying to see the connection between itself and other there's always that unknown left over; 2 dewdrops have 1 dimension, and in order to see that line you need to go ONE MORE dimension out, but you can only see the plane you created if you go in a dimension orthogonal to the one you just went, and it turns you can never get a vantage point to see everything at once. Or in other words, to get a perspective on the line that 2 points create, you need to be outside the line, but if you are outside the line you created a plane between yourself and the line, and if you want to see the plane you need to move outside the plane to the hyperplane (or R^3) and in order to see the hyperplane you need to go out into hyperspace (R^4) and so on and so on. So by trying to get a vantage point to see everything that is created you just make the mess worse, and REALLY you should instead be realizing that you should just stop thinking about trying to get the "omniscient vantage point" that we assign to the Christian God because there is no such vantage point, and you should just realize the only thing you can ever be aware of is 1 dewdrop in zero dimensions, and that's what started it all. That 1 dewdrop in 0 dimensions, if you expand it out, implies everything else, perhaps that's what it all means. Any one of the n+1 dewdrops implies the n connections that the n dewdrops share. Maybe this makes sense, maybe it doesn't. -
Love you Alan.
-
Love?
-
It fascinates me to hear him speak of things that are so relative to our society today in 2016. From society to the internet and phone. He was so grounded to what was going on in our world. Simply fascinating.
-
thank you for this man!
-
thanks so much for this wonnnderful lecture of Alan, so much.
-
1:40 talks about the technologies, Virtual Reality and the future human.
-
I love pigtails. I want to hump her.
-
XD
-
holy shiiii my fave video....
-
alan watts was one of the greats of his time. the fact so many people upload his works all muddled and with the wrong title's or made up ones, also placing adds all over his lectures is an insult to alan and what he was all about teaching and interacting with people, threw lectures to share his ideas and thoughts freely to raise peoples notions and intelligence on the true nature of things like (religion) (language) (mind) and improving state of being altogether.
-
awe yeah
-
this guy is a weirdo.
-
Although most all of Watt's work is great, this is one of the better Watts talked I've listened to.
-
Although the 'ray' dies, the 'source' of one's true being lives on (to paraphrase Alan's remark toward the end). One most essential question is whether or not consciousness of 'source' lives on after the 'ray' dies. Are we aware of awareness after life in the body? If so, what can be done now while alive in the body to access such a state that is aware of awareness after life in the body is no longer? In other words, if we live on as 'source,' is there anything that can be done now to access this 'source' while we are still alive and maintain our awareness of it as the body dissolves?
0m 0sLenght
565Rating