Originally Posted by Taramarie

Jeez i thought these videos sounded very old. The man died in 1973.

You're not missing much by not knowing about him, his shtick mainly consisted of twisting eastern religions and philosophical traditions and forcing them to fit into middle class western New Age garbage.

Originally Posted by Odin

You're not missing much by not knowing about him, his shtick mainly consisted of twisting eastern religions and philosophical traditions and forcing them to fit into middle class western New Age garbage.

It is so old it is funny. He is from a totally different era. It may have been popular back in the hippy era but i question if people now would be into it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'd agree with your first sentence of your previous post. Life happened, and it's tenacious. Certainly, whether plants have consciousness or not is debatable. I am on one side of that debate Plants are conscious, but there are degrees of consciousness, from the spirit world all the way down to rocks and atoms. Life is what "does itself" in relationship.

OK, it's your choice to believe the mystical mumbo-jumbo and mine to avoid it as if it were poison.

Those aspects of life in the definition you quote, are only possible for a conscious being; although you could say they are the observable aspects of consciousness. I agree with George Lucas. Life is "the force," known in all spiritual traditions. Science doesn't have much of a handle on it; it mostly casts it out. Science gives us knowledge, but not about everything. Life is essentially spiritual. It is the creative force of the universe. We know it, but by other means than lab tests.

Intelligent life has spirit, and possibly some spirituality. I can only imagine what the family dog thinks of the ultimate realities of the universe as it can comprehend them.

It could be, but I hope that "silicon-based" artificial life doesn't take over. As a member of the human species, I want it to survive and develop. I want a new species to be something evolved from humans. But, who knows; what I want may not be what happens. Could AI eventually turn itself into the kind of soft, organic, fleshy beings like the rest of Nature?

It's unlikely that intelligent life will be able to slow the nuclear reactions within the Sun as they intensify with time. About a billion years from now, carbon-based life will be impossible on Earth, and all that will be left -- short of us and our favored critters finding more amenable homes in far-off places distant by light-years, maybe in solar systems less advanced in the evolution of their home stars than ours -- will be the silicon-based life that we have left behind to exist for a couple billion more years. Will it have consciousness? Quite possibly. Metabolize? Photosynthesis based more on photons than on chemistry. Reproduce? Once that is possible...Maybe it will thrive longer on the Moon or Mars due to thinner atmospheres as water steadily vaporizes from the oceans and makes Earth into an incredible pressure cooker.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

OK, it's your choice to believe the mystical mumbo-jumbo and mine to avoid it as if it were poison.

No, it's nourishment of which you and all of us are in need.

Intelligent life has spirit, and possibly some spirituality. I can only imagine what the family dog thinks of the ultimate realities of the universe as it can comprehend them.

That's better. Dogs do not contemplate the ultimate realities of the universe, but they are obviously conscious and caring beings.

If intelligent life has spirit, it does itself-- in relationship to It. Mechanical causes cannot explain it, or its activities.

It's unlikely that intelligent life will be able to slow the nuclear reactions within the Sun as they intensify with time. About a billion years from now, carbon-based life will be impossible on Earth, and all that will be left -- short of us and our favored critters finding more amenable homes in far-off places distant by light-years, maybe in solar systems less advanced in the evolution of their home stars than ours -- will be the silicon-based life that we have left behind to exist for a couple billion more years. Will it have consciousness? Quite possibly. Metabolize? Photosynthesis based more on photons than on chemistry. Reproduce? Once that is possible...Maybe it will thrive longer on the Moon or Mars due to thinner atmospheres as water steadily vaporizes from the oceans and makes Earth into an incredible pressure cooker.

Why would silicon-based life survive the hotter conditions a billion years from now?

No, I'm with Teilhard de Chardin and James Redfield. Long before then, we will be able to do what Jesus is thought by many to have done; to move between this life and the next at will. Our being will be totally in God, no longer dependent on the Earth matrix.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

It is so old it is funny. He is from a totally different era. It may have been popular back in the hippy era but i question if people now would be into it.

Many recognize his wisdom today. Joseph Campbell for one. He just speaks the plain and obvious truth, with humor. I don't have to agree with him 100%, as he himself says, it doesn't matter. Alan Watts would probably be more likely to identify himself as a hippie than a new ager. But he was just a scholar and a great mind with a wonderful voice, whose words liberate us.

And my goodness, he was ahead of his time. Everything that has happened, he predicted. And I am always amazed at the breadth and diversity of his thought, even when sometimes he sounds tied to a particular point of view. He said it all; I even learned, after I created it, that he even anticipated my philosophy wheel. Noone else ever did that, as far as I know.

I was also priviledged to meet him, to hear him speak in person, and my parents to know him too.

No era that would "go beyond him," would be worth anything.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Many recognize his wisdom today. Joseph Campbell for one. He just speaks the plain and obvious truth, with humor. I don't have to agree with him 100%, as he himself says, it doesn't matter. Alan Watts would probably be more likely to identify himself as a hippie than a new ager. But he was just a scholar and a great mind with a wonderful voice, whose words liberate us.

And my goodness, he was ahead of his time. Everything that has happened, he predicted. And I am always amazed at the breadth and diversity of his thought, even when sometimes he sounds tied to a particular point of view. He said it all; he even anticipated my philosophy wheel. Noone else ever did that, as far as I know.

I was also priviledged to meet him, to hear him speak in person, and my parents to know him too.

I had to look that guy up. Joseph was even older than that hippie and he died when i was 2 turning 3. I question if he is largely followed by my generation. I have only heard of him from you and I do not see a large spiritual uprising for this train of thought...there are other more important things to think about atm. He was clearly needed in his time but 2T is long gone and wont return for a long time yet. Then society will be ready for that sort of thing.

on a large scale i mean.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Many recognize his wisdom today. Joseph Campbell for one. He just speaks the plain and obvious truth, with humor. I don't have to agree with him 100%, as he himself says, it doesn't matter. Alan Watts would probably be more likely to identify himself as a hippie than a new ager. But he was just a scholar and a great mind with a wonderful voice, whose words liberate us.

And my goodness, he was ahead of his time. Everything that has happened, he predicted. And I am always amazed at the breadth and diversity of his thought, even when sometimes he sounds tied to a particular point of view. He said it all; he even anticipated my philosophy wheel. Noone else ever did that, as far as I know.

I was also priviledged to meet him, to hear him speak in person, and my parents to know him too.

No era that would "go beyond him," would be worth anything.

I wouldnt know regarding him being ahead of his time. The 2T is like another world to me. I do not really understand that foreign line of thinking. They saw a need for it in their time and likewise my cohort sees something else lacking now just it is something completely different and you could probably call it the total reverse of what was lacking in the 2T. Good you met him. I bet you guys had a lot to chat about.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I had to look that guy up. Joseph was even older than that hippie and he died when i was 2 turning 3. I question if he is largely followed by my generation. I have only heard of him from you and I do not see a large spiritual uprising for this train of thought...there are other more important things to think about atm. He was clearly needed in his time but 2T is long gone and wont return for a long time yet. Then society will be ready for that sort of thing.

Watts is wisdom for any time. He seems to be needed now, judging by the needs that people here are not always aware of, apparently. But he says a lot of things I want to say, so much better than I do.

What if our past also teaches us not to do certain things. Should not let go of certain things. They teach us a lesson. I think our past is what we make of it. Does it cage us up or does it teach us a valuable lesson. I do not think i would want to let go of the past as it made me who i am and taught me some great things because i did make a lesson out of certain things in my life. There are some things that purely were negative and gave me flaws which need work but the past does not need to be something one lets go if you use it to your advantage.

I don't disagree with this, btw. A balanced approach.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I wouldnt know regarding him being ahead of his time. The 2T is like another world to me. I do not really understand that foreign line of thinking. They saw a need for it in their time and likewise my cohort sees something else lacking now just it is something completely different and you could probably call it the total reverse of what was lacking in the 2T. Good you met him. I bet you guys had a lot to chat about.

I wouldn't expect you to know whether he was ahead of his time. You'd have to take my word for it, that he might, since I have heard and read him for so many years, and you just started to know him a little bit. But Watts is just good wisdom; needed at any time. He is certainly not what Odin says, but why would you or anyone here think he would be what Odin says he is?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Watts is wisdom for any time. He seems to be needed now, judging by the needs that people here are not always aware of, apparently. But he says a lot of things I want to say, so much better than I do.



I don't disagree with this, btw. A balanced approach.

So, while civic habits are up you think the message of the 2T is dying? Probably, buuuut then again all generations have their strengths and their weaknesses. Most likely a generation like yours will agree with you. It is not our greatest strength but we know it is not the most important thing atm. We were raised on the whole to be a different kind of creature. Others will fill that cultural void. I do not see boomers being like their parents and we are not like boomers. It is maybe needed but that time will come.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

So, while civic habits are up you think the message of the 2T is dying? Probably, buuuut then again all generations have their strengths and their weaknesses. Most likely a generation like yours will agree with you. It is not our greatest strength but we know it is not the most important thing atm. We were raised on the whole to be a different kind of creature. Others will fill that cultural void. I do not see boomers being like their parents and we are not like boomers. It is maybe needed but that time will come.

Here in America, millennials have a long way to go to acquire civic discipline. They have demonstrated better behavior (less crime) and more networking and tech skill (but are distracted by it). But a healthy society is not so polarized as we are between different times and generations. We would be better if we had more of the spirituality that other cultures have, all the time. And respect for civil society too, at all times. The cycle is really quite dysfunctional, as we live it here in the USA. A dogmatic and limiting materialism is not proper, nor is fundamentalist religion. Americans and to some extent the whole Anglo world seem to like going in circles and overturning what others have given them and forgetting all about it. The fact is, as you said about the past, cultures do better if we learn from the past and not throw it over so thoroughly that someone like you has no idea what a 2T was about, or for that matter, that young people like me grow up in a 2T with too much willingness to overthrow civil society and cultural tradition as we find it. I learned though, as the Awakening went forward, to value past traditions more, and to take a more broad view and include all mindsets into my own.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I wouldn't expect you to know whether he was ahead of his time. You'd have to take my word for it, that he might, since I have heard and read him for so many years, and you just started to know him a little bit. But Watts is just good wisdom; needed at any time. He is certainly not what Odin says, but why would you or anyone here think he would be what Odin says he is?

I listen to everyone. I find other perspectives interesting. My type (in my sig) is a sensitive one as you know. I dont know the man but i listen to others who sound like they may know more than me. I personally find him a little interesting yet too woo woo for me personally. It is unfamiliar territory and at the end of the day we all have our opinions formed from what we have experienced. But i do put facts first. As you have stated you personally knew him i find that even more interesting and more valuable. But again, you are more accepting of what he taught, so (shrug) i have to say he is just out of place in this era, he is from another era. You would have to go by how people who are younger feel about it now. It will be relevant perhaps later. This kinda thing really does not have facts just a personal path and opinion at the end of the day. You may think it is needed, that may be so but i do think and also personally see, it is not the priority of the era. Politics and institutions are and we both know why

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Here in America, millennials have a long way to go to acquire civic discipline. They have demonstrated better behavior (less crime) and more networking and tech skill (but are distracted by it). But a healthy society is not so polarized as we are between different times and generations. We would be better if we had more of the spirituality that other cultures have, all the time. And respect for civil society too, at all times. The cycle is really quite dysfunctional, as we live it here in the USA. A dogmatic and limiting materialism is not proper, nor is fundamentalist religion. Americans and to some extent the whole Anglo world seem to like going in circles and overturning what others have given them and forgetting all about it. The fact is, as you said about the past, cultures do better if we learn from the past and not throw it over so thoroughly that someone like you has no idea what a 2T was about, or for that matter, that young people like me grow up in a 2T with too much willingness to overthrow civil society and cultural tradition as we find it. I learned though, as the Awakening went forward, to value past traditions more, and to take a more broad view and include all mindsets into my own.

Well firstly i did not say american millies are civic. I am not an american and they would have to answer that one. But they still are different from boomers.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Here in America, millennials have a long way to go to acquire civic discipline. They have demonstrated better behavior (less crime) and more networking and tech skill (but are distracted by it). But a healthy society is not so polarized as we are between different times and generations. We would be better if we had more of the spirituality that other cultures have, all the time. And respect for civil society too, at all times. The cycle is really quite dysfunctional, as we live it here in the USA. A dogmatic and limiting materialism is not proper, nor is fundamentalist religion. Americans and to some extent the whole Anglo world seem to like going in circles and overturning what others have given them and forgetting all about it. The fact is, as you said about the past, cultures do better if we learn from the past and not throw it over so thoroughly that someone like you has no idea what a 2T was about, or for that matter, that young people like me grow up in a 2T with too much willingness to overthrow civil society and cultural tradition as we find it. I learned though, as the Awakening went forward, to value past traditions more, and to take a more broad view and include all mindsets into my own.

However, I am glad I am not an American millie. They are quite different in some cases from what I have seen than NZ millies who have actually adopted more of the civic/heroic qualities that seem to be missing from our American counterparts. It is quite an empowering experience to be a kiwi millie atm.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Here in America, millennials have a long way to go to acquire civic discipline. They have demonstrated better behavior (less crime) and more networking and tech skill (but are distracted by it). But a healthy society is not so polarized as we are between different times and generations. We would be better if we had more of the spirituality that other cultures have, all the time. And respect for civil society too, at all times. The cycle is really quite dysfunctional, as we live it here in the USA. A dogmatic and limiting materialism is not proper, nor is fundamentalist religion. Americans and to some extent the whole Anglo world seem to like going in circles and overturning what others have given them and forgetting all about it. The fact is, as you said about the past, cultures do better if we learn from the past and not throw it over so thoroughly that someone like you has no idea what a 2T was about, or for that matter, that young people like me grow up in a 2T with too much willingness to overthrow civil society and cultural tradition as we find it. I learned though, as the Awakening went forward, to value past traditions more, and to take a more broad view and include all mindsets into my own.

I agree wholeheartedly with what i have highlighted

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I listen to everyone. I find other perspectives interesting. My type (in my sig) is a sensitive one as you know. I dont know the man but i listen to others who sound like they may know more than me. I personally find him a little interesting yet too woo woo for me personally.

Although he made a point of avoiding woo-woo, much more than I do. His approach is to get us to see things that any person of common sense can see, and yet connect us to deep wisdom.

It is unfamiliar territory and at the end of the day we all have our opinions formed from what we have experienced. But i do put facts first. As you have stated you personally knew him i find that even more interesting and more valuable. But again, you are more accepting of what he taught, so (shrug) i have to say he is just out of place in this era, he is from another era. You would have to go by how people who are younger feel about it now. It will be relevant perhaps later. This kinda thing really does not have facts just a personal path and opinion at the end of the day. You may think it is needed, that may be so but i do think and also personally see, it is not the priority of the era. Politics and institutions are and we both know why

Yes, but wisdom is needed even when we are involved in those things; maybe especially so. And he has much to say about it, as he does about everything. He is quite universal; you can't put him in a box, even a box of his time. Even though sometimes it seems like it, because he was meeting the needs of his time too. But he also goes beyond his time.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

However, I am glad I am not an American millie. They are quite different in some cases from what I have seen than NZ millies who have actually adopted more of the civic/heroic qualities that seem to be missing from our American counterparts. It is quite an empowering experience to be a kiwi millie atm.

Good, a kiwi millie seems like a good thing to be.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Here in America, millennials have a long way to go to acquire civic discipline. They have demonstrated better behavior (less crime) and more networking and tech skill (but are distracted by it). But a healthy society is not so polarized as we are between different times and generations. We would be better if we had more of the spirituality that other cultures have, all the time. And respect for civil society too, at all times. The cycle is really quite dysfunctional, as we live it here in the USA. A dogmatic and limiting materialism is not proper, nor is fundamentalist religion. Americans and to some extent the whole Anglo world seem to like going in circles and overturning what others have given them and forgetting all about it. The fact is, as you said about the past, cultures do better if we learn from the past and not throw it over so thoroughly that someone like you has no idea what a 2T was about, or for that matter, that young people like me grow up in a 2T with too much willingness to overthrow civil society and cultural tradition as we find it. I learned though, as the Awakening went forward, to value past traditions more, and to take a more broad view and include all mindsets into my own.

Yeah i did say that and well, we know that people do tend to forget the past enough to make the future rhyme.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I agree wholeheartedly with what i have highlighted

And to me, it is obvious that fundamentalist science is equally limiting and oppressive. We don't need either one, fundie science or religion, for the same reason. As long as it is tied down to materialism, science cannot be the open-minded and open-ended approach that you and others have said that it is. Sheldrake hit it right on the nose there. Religion was once extremely oppressive, and is often too limiting today. Nowadays, science is equally narrow-minded, and has more sway over educated people than religion does.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good, a kiwi millie seems like a good thing to be.

yes i am quite pleased to be the coordinator and one of the leaders of our uprising of the occupy movement. They were not really coordinated till i gave them suggestions.I figured we millies came together for the earthquakes, why not for this too. A lot to do but we can do it. It is a great thing to be a kiwi millie. Perhaps American millies could learn from us. You want something to happen you get up off your arse and do it. Be the change you want to see in the world.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And to me, it is obvious that fundamentalist science is equally limiting and oppressive. We don't need either one, fundie science or religion, for the same reason. As long as it is tied down to materialism, science cannot be the open-minded and open-ended approach that you and others have said that it is. Sheldrake hit it right on the nose there. Religion was once extremely oppressive, and is often too limiting today. Nowadays, science is equally narrow-minded, and has more sway over educated people than religion does.

I only agree with that to the extent of what i mentioned to you on what science could not currently explain to me (my personal experiences). I currently do not know what else it would apply to.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I only agree with that to the extent of what i mentioned to you on what science could not currently explain to me (my personal experiences). I currently do not know what else it would apply to.

It applies to any ideas that are too limited about who and what we are, and what the world and reality is. The 10 dogmas that Sheldrake mentioned, for a start. The methods of science are not changed, if we do not assume a philosophy going in. Most scientists assume a philosophy going in, that of materialism. But that philosophy is not necessary to science at all.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Although he made a point of avoiding woo-woo, much more than I do. His approach is to get us to see things that any person of common sense can see, and yet connect us to deep wisdom.


Yes, but wisdom is needed even when we are involved in those things; maybe especially so. And he has much to say about it, as he does about everything. He is quite universal; you can't put him in a box, even a box of his time. Even though sometimes it seems like it, because he was meeting the needs of his time too. But he also goes beyond his time.

Keep in mind it is something you are interested in and what may seem like common sense to you may not be for someone else. Some do not even contemplate what he did as some delve into it more than others. I didnt really either which is why when you mention things like this it is foreign territory. So common sense is again, a very personal perspective. Universal maybe, but popularity rises and falls. I am not saying he is not important for all eras. If you remember i said we need all in all eras but as i have been saying it is not the huge focus for our current era. There are other things on peoples minds which has been brought forward as the largest concern.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It applies to any ideas that are too limited about who and what we are, and what the world and reality is. The 10 dogmas that Sheldrake mentioned, for a start. The methods of science are not changed, if we do not assume a philosophy going in. Most scientists assume a philosophy going in, that of materialism. But that philosophy is not necessary to science at all.

Meh to me currently science is too fascinating to allow philosophy to possibly warp reality. I personally am fascinated by what science is capable of in creating the amazing things within our own planet and the worlds beyond. I find philosophy and science to be two different things. Philosophy is personal and science explains our world and us to a certain degree. We have a different mindset on this and it should not be a terrible thing to be interested in allowing science to explain things. I even tried to apply it to my strange experiences but i could not so it remains an open mystery till further evidence can explain it. But i do not think they will be explaining it for a good while as they deny such things are possible. Damn shame it is an interesting mystery.