Alan Watts Lecture Edition – The Natural Environment

**The speaker shifts from discussing religious experience to a broader critique of dismissing non-verbal or practical knowledge in both historical science and contemporary academia. This contrasts the value of direct engagement with phenomena—whether spiritual or scientific—against an elitist tendency towards abstract theorizing.** The speaker frames a discussion of comparative religion and psychology through the lens of William James’s work on religious experience, particularly “cosmic consciousness” defined as a sense of unity with the universe. This experiential dimension is argued to have increasing pragmatic relevance in the 20th century due to humanity's technological capacity for planetary destruction, necessitating a move beyond perceiving separation from nature. The speaker contrasts this experimental approach to religion with its historical treatment within academia, where it’s often relegated to the status of a “museum piece,” and critiques an attitude that dismisses non-verbal experience as unsuitable for scholarly inquiry. Historically, early Western science was intertwined with mysticism and empirical observation—a practice later discouraged by scholastic reliance on established texts—and this pattern is echoed in contemporary devaluation of practical or hands-on learning. The speaker suggests a parallel between the dismissal of experiential knowledge today and historical resistance to scientific experimentation itself, framing both as stemming from an elitist aversion to “getting one’s hands dirty.”

**The speaker shifts from a general discussion to a critique of contemporary education's focus on abstraction and its consequences for individual fulfillment. This is contrasted with the practical, embodied nature of mystical traditions as a path towards a more meaningful life.** Contemporary education, excessively focused on literacy and professional training, produces individuals suited for bureaucratic roles rather than a fulfilling life grounded in practical skills and sensory experience. This system fosters abstraction over substance—producing superficial products with planned obsolescence and prioritizing appearance over genuine quality—resulting in a paradoxical state of material dissatisfaction despite economic wealth. The consequence is a homogenization of place through rapid travel, diminishing the value of authentic cultural experiences and necessitating reliance on external sources for meaningful goods. Conversely, mystical traditions, often misconstrued as anti-worldly, are deeply rooted in empirical experience and emphasize engagement with the physical realm, exemplified by the bodhisattva ideal of returning to work within the world after enlightenment. Ultimately, a balanced approach integrating intellectual pursuits with practical knowledge and sensory awareness is essential for cultivating a truly rich existence, aligning with ancient wisdom prioritizing both mental clarity and material well-being.

**The speaker shifts from describing non-verbal spiritual articulation to analyzing the historical relationship between science and religion in Western thought. This contrasts with prior discussion by framing contemporary academic biases against studying religion as stemming from a specific historical trajectory, beginning with early scientists’ dual engagement with both empirical observation and religious inquiry.** The speaker begins with an anecdote illustrating a non-verbal approach to articulating spiritual ideals—an attitude prioritized over explicit definition—and raises the fundamental problem of how immaterial consciousness influences material reality. He then traces this tension back to the origins of Western science, noting early scientists’ simultaneous engagement with both empirical observation and religious experimentation, exemplified by Nicholas Cusanus’s “Learned Ignorance.” This historical context frames a critique of contemporary academic resistance to experimentally studying religion, particularly concerning explorations of altered consciousness which are often dismissed as frivolous despite the maturity demonstrated in other contexts. The speaker further contends that current theological trends—specifically, the “death of God” theology—represent a delayed reaction against an outdated conception of divinity and risk reducing life to a purely materialistic existence, prompting a call for critical self-reflection regarding the motivations behind such dogmatic pronouncements. Ultimately, he suggests that scientism’s initial rejection of God targeted not belief itself, but rather the discomfort of being judged by a traditional, anthropomorphic deity.

**The speaker argues that the preference for a mechanistic universe isn't based on objective evidence but stems from a discomfort with being observed by an intelligence. This represents a shift from discussing observation as a neutral act to analyzing its psychological and motivational underpinnings within scientific inquiry.** The discomfort with being observed—experienced even in childhood learning—drives a preference for a mechanistic universe devoid of judging intelligence, despite its inherent unsatisfactoriness as a conceptual framework. This rejection of a “presiding intelligence” resulted in reductionist approaches to understanding the cosmos, characterized by terms like “blind energy” and “libido,” which are framed not as objective descriptions but as assertions of human dominance over nature. However, this pursuit of a banal, fully explicable reality reveals a desire *to* prove a point rather than an impartial inquiry; the capacity for conscious observation is itself presented as fundamental to existence, transforming otherwise meaningless quanta into a perceived universe. True scientific openness, conversely, requires relinquishing preconceived notions about simplicity and avoiding censorship of challenging ideas, recognizing that progress depends on accommodating unconventional perspectives—even those deemed “crazy”—within established institutions. Ultimately, maintaining intellectual flexibility and tolerating criticism are essential for both individual sanity and the robustness of any community of thought.

**The speaker shifts from observing societal self-censorship to proposing empirical research into sensitive areas like religious consciousness. This represents a move from diagnosing a problem of intellectual freedom to advocating for a specific methodology—evidence-based inquiry—to address it, contrasting risk-taking with current protective measures.** Contemporary society exhibits increasing self-censorship, particularly within institutions like corporations and universities, contrasting with a historical openness to challenging even fundamental tenets of authority; this constriction necessitates a measured tolerance for dissenting viewpoints as a safeguard against intellectual stagnation. The speaker advocates for empirical investigation into areas considered sensitive—specifically religious consciousness—through diverse methods including fieldwork in Eastern communities and neurological study, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based inquiry over reactionary assertions lacking substantiation. Such research requires embracing risk, mirroring past scientific advancements achieved through self-experimentation despite potential dangers, a willingness currently hampered by excessive protective measures and societal “panic.” The speaker illustrates this point with the example of the Spanish Inquisition, demonstrating how deeply held beliefs—even demonstrably false ones—can justify extreme actions when perceived as existential threats. Ultimately, investigating fundamental suppositions is crucial because these underpin all common sense and guide human action, making religion itself a potentially dangerous domain due to its formative power.

**The speaker shifts from discussing general power dynamics to a specific application: reframing mental illness as a form of social non-conformity. This contrasts with traditional medical models by suggesting pathology is constructed through societal norms and treatment often reinforces perceived illness.** The speaker proposes a speculative analogy between mental illness and historical heresy, suggesting that conditions labeled as pathology may represent non-conforming ways of experiencing life rather than inherent disease. He argues experience is not passively received but actively shaped by social norms, with deviations from these norms pathologized through medicalization. This model frames psychiatric treatment—particularly institutionalization—as a “degradation ceremony” that reinforces the perceived illness and inhibits potential healing or liberation. Instead, he posits an alternative approach of viewing such experiences as growth processes deserving support via an “initiation ceremony,” though acknowledges systemic barriers to this perspective within institutions where unconventional spiritual expression is often dismissed as further evidence of pathology, citing an example from a young man’s experience in the Air Force. The speaker emphasizes that behaviors are context-dependent and not intrinsic qualities of individuals, challenging conventional understandings of violence and psychological well-being.

**The speaker shifts from discussing societal structures to exploring the boundaries between sanity and madness through a philosophical lens. This contrasts with previous discussion by examining fundamental assumptions about reality, knowledge, and decision-making processes beyond rational frameworks.** The conventional distinction between sanity and madness is challenged by observing instances where individuals labeled “crazy” demonstrate creative potential after societal rejection, suggesting an inversion of normative judgment. This subversion extends to a critique of fundamental assumptions about survival as a supreme good, exemplified by the initial tenets of Buddhism which viewed worldly pursuits as sources of torment. Religious inquiry, particularly explorations into basic assumptions, is presented as inherently dangerous and necessitating protective strategies like esotericism to avoid societal backlash. Successful mystics navigate this danger through skillful communication within conventional frameworks, contrasting with those deemed schizophrenic who lack such linguistic adaptability. Ultimately, human decision-making operates amidst irreducible uncertainty, relying on intuitive processes akin to computation—highlighted by the use of chance mechanisms like coin flipping—because rational analysis cannot account for infinite variables.

**The speaker shifts from discussing brain intelligence to exploring limitations imposed by symbolic thought and conceptualization. He proposes that direct experience, cultivated through practices like Judo or meditation, allows for a broader awareness unconstrained by the filtering effects of language and analysis.** The human brain’s capacity for homeostasis and spontaneous action suggests an inherent intelligence often exceeding conscious understanding, prompting a focus on “brain trusting” through experiential practices like Judo. This emphasis on immediate response contrasts with a culturally reinforced reliance on symbolic thought—words, numbers—which cultivates a specialized, scanning form of attention that selectively identifies and notates noteworthy environmental features. Consequently, individuals operate with restricted consciousness, limiting processing capacity to one variable at a time and hindering responsiveness in complex situations requiring rapid decision-making. Expanding awareness beyond this narrowed focus, as exemplified by organ playing or Buddhist jhāna, involves observing internal and external environments without conceptualization, recognizing that perceived separateness is ultimately a product of thought rather than inherent reality. This suspension of concepts allows for direct neurological “digestion” of experience, bypassing the self-referential loop of symbolic representation.

**The speaker shifts from discussing the benefits of scientific progress to its potential drawbacks—specifically, information overload. This transition highlights a growing disconnect between researchers and direct experience due to the sheer volume of accumulated knowledge.** The accelerating production of scientific information is creating a situation analogous to an endlessly fragmenting body of knowledge, requiring increasingly complex layers of condensation simply to remain aware of its scope. This process of distillation—digests of digests—presents practical challenges related to storage and the sheer cognitive burden imposed upon researchers. Beyond manageability, however, lies a more fundamental problem: this relentless accumulation risks severing intellectual work from direct engagement with the physical world. The speaker illustrates this detachment through analogy, comparing it to an unending monologue that precludes genuine dialogue or new input, suggesting continuous thought similarly isolates one from external reality and fresh perspectives. Ultimately, a cessation of constant processing is posited as necessary for meaningful cognition.