What nature is — according to philosopher Alan Watts
Philosopher Alan Watts thoughts on the the all-pervading presence of nature.
- Alan Watts explores the arbitrary distinction between artificiality and what is considered natural.
- He lays out three unique ways of viewing the world through different world philosophies and sciences.
- Humanity is not a separate entity from nature, but an intellectual disconnect makes us feel that we are.
A lot of times people talk about getting back to nature and connecting with something more primal and real. Often this evokes images of verdant forests, landscapes of unbounded "natural" scenes cascading from all lines of sight. A large swath of the world populace has been cut off from what we commonly think of as the natural world, as they stay shrouded in concrete jungles and disconnected in steel cities.
Take for example the poetry of Thoreau and Whitman, which tend to appeal to our more nostalgic sides, longing for a golden pastoral age long past. Yet, there's also something to be said about the naturalness of our own artificial creations — that which includes our technologies, our cities and the force in which we shape the planet through our will.
Alan Watts points out the paradox inherent in the way we perceive our own selves and creations in relation to nature. From this perception, the way the we define ourselves and the relationship to our environment and the universe at large then becomes strained. According to the philosopher:
Man is as much attached to nature as a tree, and though he walks freely on two legs and is not rooted in the soil, he is by no means a self-sufficient, self-moving, and self-directing entity.
Isolation from nature in the mind
For most people, there's no doubt in their mind that the sprouting of a tree or the tumultuous whipping power of a maelstrom is in no way related to, say, a skyscraper or musical symphony.
But the simple fact of the matter is that all of these things, no matter how completely divorced from one another in either scope or linguistic classification, all stem from the eternal wellspring of some natural source. Humans and their creations included.
Watts argues that the dividing line between artificial and natural is an arbitrary one that we use out of semantic convenience.
"So one should think about this funny thing of technology considered as artificiality in the light of the realization that there really is nothing artificial. You might say the distinction of the artificial from the natural is a very artificial distinction; that the constructs of human beings are really no more unnatural than bees' nests, and birds' nests, and constructs of animal and insect beings. They're extensions of ourselves."
These divisions are completely of our own making. Even so, there is still a lot to be said regarding our disconnect from what we perceive as natural.
"The isolation of the human soul from nature is, generally speaking, a phenomenon of civilization. This isolation is more apparent than real, because the more nature is held back by brick, concrete, and machines, the more it reasserts itself in the human mind, usually as an unwanted, violent, and troublesome visitor.
. . . the difficulty is not so much in what he does as in what he thinks. If he were to seek union instead of isolation this would not involve what is generally called 'getting back to nature'; he would not have to give up his machines and cities and retire to the forests and live in wigwams. He would only have to change his attitude, for the penalties he pays for his isolation are only indirectly on the physical plane. They originate from and are most severe in his mind."
Excerpt from The Collected Letters of Alan Watts
This idea of nature was prevalent in a lot of Watts' work. Here is one quote from his collected letters that stands out as noteworthy and illustrates the clashing paradox for the warring ideas of: disconnect between what is felt to be artificial in contrast to the knowledge that which is truly nature still resides in us.
"Our life and circumstances are almost purely man-made (or so we think), and there are many people who believe that we can never achieve any great degree of spirituality until we return to a closer contact with nature. But this idea is both true and false, false because the idea that we are independent of nature is a tremendous conceit, and true because we are, relatively speaking, divorced from nature by that very attitude.
A secondary difference is that man is self-conscious; he believes himself to have an ego, a separate, self-contained, self-directing entity which has to ﬁgure things out for itself, whereas the bird just lets nature or instinct take care of its problems."
But nature is powerful and when man disagrees with it he feels his loneliness and impotence; this is the great unhappiness. The Buddhists call it sakayaditthi, or the 'heresy of separateness,' which is another name for being 'taken in' or fooled by the sense of selfhood."
Alan Watts' three theories of nature
Watts saw that there were a few different ways of viewing nature that varied according to culture.
There are three theories: the Western Mechanical Theory (nature as an artifact), the Hindu Dramatic Theory, and the Chinese Organic Theory.
The Western theory stems from the old God mythos as creator who set the universe in motion in a mechanistic matter. Nature is seen as "machine or artifact." This idea has continued on in our scientific and secular way of thought still. There are remnants of it in the way we view cosmology and other reductionist philosophies.
Watts second theory of nature is what he called the Indian theory. Nature not as artifact, but as drama. Foundational to Hindu thought is the idea that the world is māyā (माया). This Sanskrit word means the magical illusion or play-like nature of reality. The entire human enterprise and existence of being for all lifeforms is some epic drama meant for the stage. In this regard, Watts said:
". . . all sense experiences are vibrations of the Self — not just yourself, but the Self — and all of us share this Self in common because it is pretending to be all of us. Brahman, the ultimate principle, plays hide and seek eternally. And he does it for unspeakably long periods of time."
Finally, the Chinese theory of nature is one of spontaneity or automatic force. The Chinese word for nature is zìrán which translates roughly to what happens of itself. Similar to the idea of the Tao.
"Nature — human nature included — is an organism, and an organism is a system of orderly anarchy. There is no boss in it, but it gets along by being left alone and being allowed to do its stuff. That's what the Chinese Taoist philosophy calls wu wei (無爲), which means — not 'doing nothing' — but 'not interfering with the course of events.' Not acting against the grain."
Within these three unique ways of viewing the world, we can come to understand ourselves and our place in nature and the universe in a much more engaging and holistic view.
What can 3D printing do for medicine? The "sky is the limit," says Northwell Health researcher Dr. Todd Goldstein.
- Medical professionals are currently using 3D printers to create prosthetics and patient-specific organ models that doctors can use to prepare for surgery.
- Eventually, scientists hope to print patient-specific organs that can be transplanted safely into the human body.
- Northwell Health, New York State's largest health care provider, is pioneering 3D printing in medicine in three key ways.
A recent study gives new meaning to the saying "fake it 'til you make it."
- The study involves four experiments that measured individuals' socioeconomic status, overconfidence and actual performance.
- Results consistently showed that high-class people tend to overestimate their abilities.
- However, this overconfidence was misinterpreted as genuine competence in one study, suggesting overestimating your abilities can have social advantages.
Is this proof of a dramatic shift?
- Map details dramatic shift from CNN to Fox News over 10-year period
- Does it show the triumph of "fake news" — or, rather, its defeat?
- A closer look at the map's legend allows for more complex analyses
Dramatic and misleading
Image: Reddit / SICResearch
The situation today: CNN pushed back to the edges of the country.
Over the course of no more than a decade, America has radically switched favorites when it comes to cable news networks. As this sequence of maps showing TMAs (Television Market Areas) suggests, CNN is out, Fox News is in.
The maps are certainly dramatic, but also a bit misleading. They nevertheless provide some insight into the state of journalism and the public's attitudes toward the press in the US.
Let's zoom in:
- It's 2008, on the eve of the Obama Era. CNN (blue) dominates the cable news landscape across America. Fox News (red) is an upstart (°1996) with a few regional bastions in the South.
- By 2010, Fox News has broken out of its southern heartland, colonizing markets in the Midwest and the Northwest — and even northern Maine and southern Alaska.
- Two years later, Fox News has lost those two outliers, but has filled up in the middle: it now boasts two large, contiguous blocks in the southeast and northwest, almost touching.
- In 2014, Fox News seems past its prime. The northwestern block has shrunk, the southeastern one has fragmented.
- Energised by Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, Fox News is back with a vengeance. Not only have Maine and Alaska gone from entirely blue to entirely red, so has most of the rest of the U.S. Fox News has plugged the Nebraska Gap: it's no longer possible to walk from coast to coast across CNN territory.
- By 2018, the fortunes from a decade earlier have almost reversed. Fox News rules the roost. CNN clings on to the Pacific Coast, New Mexico, Minnesota and parts of the Northeast — plus a smattering of metropolitan areas in the South and Midwest.
Image source: Reddit / SICResearch
This sequence of maps, showing America turning from blue to red, elicited strong reactions on the Reddit forum where it was published last week. For some, the takeover by Fox News illustrates the demise of all that's good and fair about news journalism. Among the comments?
- "The end is near."
- "The idiocracy grows."
- "(It's) like a spreading disease."
- "One of the more frightening maps I've seen."
- "LOL that's what happens when you're fake news!"
- "CNN went down the toilet on quality."
- "A Minecraft YouTuber could beat CNN's numbers."
- "CNN has become more like a high-school production of a news show."
Not a few find fault with both channels, even if not always to the same degree:
- "That anybody considers either of those networks good news sources is troubling."
- "Both leave you understanding less rather than more."
- "This is what happens when you spout bullsh-- for two years straight. People find an alternative — even if it's just different bullsh--."
- "CNN is sh-- but it's nowhere close to the outright bullsh-- and baseless propaganda Fox News spews."
"Old people learning to Google"
Image: Google Trends
CNN vs. Fox News search terms (200!-2018)
But what do the maps actually show? Created by SICResearch, they do show a huge evolution, but not of both cable news networks' audience size (i.e. Nielsen ratings). The dramatic shift is one in Google search trends. In other words, it shows how often people type in "CNN" or "Fox News" when surfing the web. And that does not necessarily reflect the relative popularity of both networks. As some commenters suggest:
- "I can't remember the last time that I've searched for a news channel on Google. Is it really that difficult for people to type 'cnn.com'?"
- "More than anything else, these maps show smart phone proliferation (among older people) more than anything else."
- "This is a map of how old people and rural areas have learned to use Google in the last decade."
- "This is basically a map of people who don't understand how the internet works, and it's no surprise that it leans conservative."
A visual image as strong as this map sequence looks designed to elicit a vehement response — and its lack of context offers viewers little new information to challenge their preconceptions. Like the news itself, cartography pretends to be objective, but always has an agenda of its own, even if just by the selection of its topics.
The trick is not to despair of maps (or news) but to get a good sense of the parameters that are in play. And, as is often the case (with both maps and news), what's left out is at least as significant as what's actually shown.
One important point: while Fox News is the sole major purveyor of news and opinion with a conservative/right-wing slant, CNN has more competition in the center/left part of the spectrum, notably from MSNBC.
Another: the average age of cable news viewers — whether they watch CNN or Fox News — is in the mid-60s. As a result of a shift in generational habits, TV viewing is down across the board. Younger people are more comfortable with a "cafeteria" approach to their news menu, selecting alternative and online sources for their information.
It should also be noted, however, that Fox News, according to Harvard's Nieman Lab, dominates Facebook when it comes to engagement among news outlets.
CNN, Fox and MSNBC
Image: Google Trends
CNN vs. Fox (without the 'News'; may include searches for actual foxes). See MSNBC (in yellow) for comparison
For the record, here are the Nielsen ratings for average daily viewer total for the three main cable news networks, for 2018 (compared to 2017):
- Fox News: 1,425,000 (-5%)
- MSNBC: 994,000 (+12%)
- CNN: 706,000 (-9%)
And according to this recent overview, the top 50 of the most popular websites in the U.S. includes cnn.com in 28th place, and foxnews.com in... 27th place.The top 5, in descending order, consists of google.com, youtube.com, facebook.com, amazon.com and yahoo.com — the latter being the highest-placed website in the News and Media category.
If you thought your mother was pushy in her pursuit of grandchildren, wait until you learn about bonobo mothers.
- Mother bonobos have been observed to help their sons find and copulate with mates.
- The mothers accomplish this by leading sons to mates, interfering with other males trying to copulate with females, and helping sons rise in the social hierarchy of the group.
- Why do mother bonobos do this? The "grandmother hypothesis" might hold part of the answer.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.