[Music]
 One moment you feel like you're a puppet.
 You're just on the end of strings.
 The next minute, you suddenly realize that everything that you are aware of is inside your brain.
 So it's all you.
 And you get the two feelings go together.
 That I'm doing it all, but it's doing me.
 And this worries people when they get this feeling, because they don't know which to decide for.
 And they don't see how to put the two together.
 [Music]
 Welcome to The Love of Wisdom with Alan Watts.
 As one of the century's most eloquent philosophers,
 Alan Watts introduced a generation in the West to the fascinating ideas of the Far East,
 the wisdoms of the Orient.
 In the 1960s and early 70s, he lectured throughout the English-speaking world
 and was recorded in a variety of settings,
 from seminars aboard his ferry boat, the Vallejo, in Sausalito, California,
 to keynote addresses at major universities.
 The author of some of the most influential books on philosophy in the 1950s and 60s,
 Watts is cited by artists, poets, and musicians
 as being at the epicenter of some of the deepest cultural changes in this century.
 As these programs demonstrate, his scholarship is timeless.
 We find his insights into the nature of reality are as compelling as they are entertaining.
 In 1969, Alan Watts was commissioned by IBM to work with their Systems Group of Engineers.
 In an eloquent yet intellectually intense session on board the Vallejo,
 Watts shows how the universe comes at us and wiggles,
 and discusses how philosophical analysis is a game between the prickly people,
 who want definition, straight lines, and the gooey people.
 We're living in an age when there's been an enormous proliferation of techniques
 for subjecting every kind of natural process outside the human skin
 and now increasingly inside the human skin to some form of rational control.
 And as we succeed in doing this, it also becomes apparent that we're failing,
 that the process becomes of such a high degree of complexity
 that we begin to feel that we're standing in our own way,
 that everybody complains.
 The state of affairs in the modern world, in the technological world, is so complicated
 that nobody can understand it, and nobody really knows what to do.
 The Western model of the universe is political and engineering or architectural,
 and therefore, as one understands the operations of a machine
 by analysis of its parts, by separating them into their original bits,
 we have bitted the cosmos and see everything going on in terms of bits,
 bits of information, and have found that this is extremely fruitful
 in enabling us to control what's happening.
 After all, the whole of Western technology is the result of bitting.
 And so we thing the world, that is to say, in order to measure a curve,
 you have to reduce it to point instance, and apply the calculus,
 so in exactly the same way, in order to discuss or talk about the universe,
 you have to reduce it to things.
 But each thing, or think, is as it were, one grasp of that spotlight,
 going ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch, like this, you see?
 So we reduce the infinite wiggliness of the world to grasps or bits,
 we're getting back to biting, you see, the idea of the teeth,
 to grasps of thought, and so we thereby describe the world in terms of things,
 just as that fisherman could describe his view by the number of net hole
 over, through which the view was showing.
 But the problem that arises is, is this.
 First of all, very obviously, everybody knows, I hardly need to mention it.
 Go to the science of medicine.
 You get a specialist who really understands the function of the gallbladder,
 and he studied gallbladders, gallbladders, gallbladders ad infinitum,
 and he really thinks he knows all about it.
 But whenever he looks at a human being, he sees him in terms of gallbladder.
 And so if he operates on the gallbladder,
 he may do so very knowledgeably about that particular area of the organism,
 but he does not foresee the unpredictable effects of this operation
 in other connected areas, because the human being's gallbladder
 is not a thing in the same way as the, a spark plug in a car
 can be extracted and a new one replaced,
 because the system isn't the same.
 There is a fundamental difference between a mechanism and an organism
 which can be described operationally.
 Mechanism is assembled, you add this bit to that bit, to that bit, to that bit.
 But an organism grows.
 That is to say, when you watch in a microscope
 a solution in which crystals are forming,
 you don't see this shape.
 It's like when you watch a photographic plate developing,
 where suddenly all, the whole area which you're watching
 seems to organize itself, to develop, to make sense,
 moving from the relatively simple and gooey
 to the relatively structured and prickly,
 but not by addition. So then, if we are trying to control and understand the world, through
 conscious attention which is a scanning system which takes in everything bit, bit, bit, bit,
 bit, what we are going to run into is that if that's the only method we rely on, everything
 is going to appear increasingly too complicated to manage. So that you get, for example, let's
 take the problem of the electronic industry. The catalogues of products that are being
 produced over the world by the electronic industry. Who has read all the catalogues?
 How do you know where you've got something you're working on, whether it's patented or
 not? Who else has taken out a patent? Has anybody had time to read all the catalogues?
 Well, nobody has. They're just voluminous. And it's exactly the same in almost any other
 field. There's an information explosion like a population explosion. How on earth are you
 going to scan all that information? Yes, of course you can get computers to help you in
 this direction, but by Parkinson's law, the sooner you become more efficient in doing
 this, the more the thing is going to develop so that you will have to have more efficient
 computers still to assimilate all the information. You'll be ahead, but only for a short time.
 So you see there's this problem of this sort of competition of consciousness, of its...
 How fast can you go?
 Dooty dooty dooty dooty dooty dooty dooty dooty dooty dooty dooty do, and keep track
 of it, you see?
 And say I've got a good memory I can keep track of that.
 And you say to you, "I bet you you can't."
 I'll go more complicated than you.
 See, let musicians do this.
 Drummers, you know, and they get things going and they start... and so long as they count,
 and lots of musicians do count, it's crazy.
 But they do.
 And they count count count and they out-complicate each other to the point where you can't retain
 it any longer in memory.
 So you say, "Okay, if I can't retain it, we've got this gadget here that can.
 And we've got these marvelous mechanical memories and they will retain it.
 And they'll go much more fancy.
 They'll go this dooty dooty dooty at a colossal speed, like that, you see?
 But it's the same old problem.
 Because you get something that can outdo that.
 So we end up asking, "Yeah, but supposing there were some other way of understanding
 things.
 Let's go back from the spotlight to the floodlight, to the extraordinary capacity of the human
 nervous system to comprehend situations instantaneously, without analysis.
 That is to say, without verbal or numerical symbolism of the situation in order to understand
 it.
 I hope you understand what I mean by that.
 We do do that.
 We have this curious ability of pattern recognition, which the mechanical systems have only in
 a very primitive way.
 Xerox have put out a machine which recognizes figures written in almost anyone's handwriting,
 provided their handwriting is fairly grade school and normal.
 But a computer has a terrible time trying to recognize the letter A when it's printed
 in say, sans serif, gothic, longhand, or whatever kind of A you may write.
 The human recognizes instantly this pattern, but the computer is still at a disadvantage
 here.
 It seems to lack a kind of capacity I would call field organization, because it's all
 punctive, it's digital.
 It is like a newspaper photograph, you know, which when you look at it under a microscope
 is all dots.
 Now so the problem is this.
 In developing technology, are we leaving out of consideration our strongest suit, which
 is the brain itself?
 You see, we are at a situation where the brain is still not really worked out by even the
 most competent neurologists.
 It puzzles them.
 They can't give a model of the brain in numerical or verbal language.
 Now you are that, you see.
 You are this thing.
 You yourself are this thing which you yourself can't figure out, in the same way that I cannot
 touch the tip of this finger with the tip of this finger, I can't bite my own teeth.
 But I, who is attempting to touch the tip of this finger with this finger, am by the
 sheer complexity of my structure far more evolved than any system which I can imagine.
 This is in a way slightly akin to the Gödel theorem, that you can't have a system of,
 say a logic, which defines its own axioms.
 The axioms of any given system must always be defined in terms of a higher system.
 All right, so you are the most complex thing that has yet been encountered in the cosmos,
 and you can't figure you out.
 Now suppose we are going to try to do that, and become as it were completely transparent
 to ourselves, so that we entirely understand the organization or the mechanics of our own
 brains.
 What happens when we do that?
 Well you are back in the situation of God.
 When you are God, what are you going to do?
 When you are God, you know what you are going to do, you are going to say to yourself, "Man,
 get lost!"
 Because what you want is a surprise, and when you figure everything out, there won't be
 any surprises.
 You will be completely bored.
 But on the other hand, a person I would say who is really functioning completely, is basically
 a person who trusts his own brains, and permits his brain to operate at a more optimal level.
 In other words, he knows how to think things out, but he makes his best discoveries without
 thinking.
 In other words, you all know very well the processes of creative invention.
 You've got a problem, you think it over, and you can't find out any answer to it, because
 the digital system of thinking is too simple, too clumsy to deal with it.
 It's more complex, there are more variables than can be kept in mind at one time.
 So you say, "I'll sleep on it."
 Or you go to the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton, or Behavioral Sciences at Stanford,
 where they pay you to goof off, which is highly, excellent idea.
 And you moon around, and you've got a blackboard, and you look out of the window and pick your
 nose and so on.
 And your brain eventually hands you the solution to the problem.
 And you immediately, because you have technical knowledge, you recognize that's the solution.
 But then, naturally, you go back and check it.
 And you work the bit-by-bit form of thinking on it, and see, now, does it come out in those
 terms?
 And if it does, everybody will agree with you, yes, that's the answer.
 But if it doesn't come out in those terms, they won't agree with you, because you haven't
 subjected it to the socially acceptable traditional form of analyzing knowledge.
 But here's the problem.
 It takes an awful long time to check these things out.
 It takes an awful long time to arrive at the solution which you got, like that, by a purely
 calculated process.
 Most of the situations of life are such that they don't wait for us to make up our minds.
 So that an enormous amount of carefully worked-out scientific knowledge is trivial.
 All very well, very finely worked out, but much too late.
 Because life presents you, life comes at you from all sides, all over everywhere at once.
 And the only thing you've got to deal with that is the thing inside here, in the skull.
 Now I'm not saying this to put down all this marvelous work of calculation, brought to
 immense sophistication electronically and so on.
 Not at all, because actually you people are the first people to understand the limitations
 of your own kind of knowledge.
 And you're going to have to tell the politicians about this.
 They don't understand.
 They think that this kind of knowledge is the answer to everything.
 And I think most of you know it isn't.
 Which is not something, I repeat, against technology.
 It's only saying that when you walk, you put your right foot forward, and that's fine,
 but then you must put your left foot forward.
 So let's say that the great technological enterprise has been putting the right foot
 forward.
 But you must bring up the left foot.
 That is to say, bring up re-valuation and new respect for the organic type of organization,
 which is incomprehensible to technological thinking, but which always underlies it.
 That by itself doesn't work, because after you bring the left foot up, you've again got
 to bring up the right foot.
 The analytic.
 After goo comes prickles.
 After prickles comes goo.
 And you have to keep this thing up.
 And I think our danger at the present time is that we are so petty, so delighted with
 the results of prickles, that we've got to let back a little bit of goo into the system.
 So now, what we've got to try and do is, I think, to work out a way of making the brain
 itself more efficient.
 And this is the thing that civilized education has neglected.
 Ben White, to quote him again, used to say that the academic world today only values
 three kinds of intelligence.
 Verbal intelligence, mnemonic intelligence, in other words, good at remembering, and computational
 intelligence.
 He said it entirely neglects kinesthetic intelligence, social intelligence, and he had at least seven
 kinds of intelligence.
 I forget what they all were.
 But it is this extraordinary capacity of the neural organization, say, to engage in pattern
 recognition and in solving instantly certain complex problems without knowing how it does
 it.
 The trouble is, when you do something you don't know how to do, you've got a non-repeatable
 experiment in a certain sense.
 In other words, you can't explain to someone else how to put it together.
 But you can do it like you can open and close your hand without any knowledge of physiology.
 Do it every time.
 Whoops, I don't know how I do it.
 I just do it, you see.
 So we have an enormous potential of intelligence, of knowing how to do all sorts of things,
 which to the extent that we are academically minded people we won't allow ourselves to
 do because we can't explain it.
 You know, there are, for example, there's a way of cooling a brazing furnace.
 It's very simple.
 But engineers say it's theoretically impossible, it can't happen.
 It's like bees can't fly by the laws of aerodynamics, but they do.
 So the rather practical issue I come to is this, that technology, if it relies exclusively
 on linear thinking, is going to destroy the environment.
 It's going to become too complicated to handle.
 Man is going to be like the dinosaur which had to have a brain in its head and a brain
 in its rump because it was so big.
 You know, the caveman kept a dinosaur and when he went to bed at night he'd clump it
 on the tail with a club and it'd scream at eight o'clock in the morning, wake him up.
 It seems to me we're getting into that kind of Saurian situation with our technology which
 is going to lead us to extinction.
 So the question is, are we going to foul things up by insisting on using linear input information
 and controlling it as the dominant tool of controlling the world, or can we master all
 that as we have done and still use the linear input and analysis but with a fundamental
 trust in our power to assimilate multiple input, although we really don't know how we
 do it?
 And my point is that you can't find an absolute which you can pin down, you see.
 So there always remains in any human operation the basic central thing which you can't pin
 down because it's you, just as the teeth can't bite themselves.
 Now the assumption of Judeo-Christian culture is that man in his nature is sinful and therefore
 can't be trusted.
 The assumption of at least ancient Chinese culture is that man in his essential nature
 is good and therefore has to be trusted because they say to us, if you can't trust your own
 basic nature, you can't really rely on the idea that you're untrustworthy.
 Therefore you're hopelessly fouled up.
 So this has amazing political and other consequences, this different assumption.
 If we say, no, we human beings are fallible and basically selfish and really, really fundamentally
 evil and therefore we need law and order, we need a control system to put us in order,
 we thereby project these control systems into the church or into the police or into
 somebody who are really ourselves disguised.
 See, it's like daylight saving time.
 Everybody could simply get up an hour earlier, but instead of doing that we alter the clock
 because the clock is a kind of authority and we say, well, the clock says it's time for
 you to get up.
 And the Indian, Amerindians laugh at the pale faces because they say, pale face, he doesn't
 know when he's hungry until he looks at his watch.
 And so in this way we become clock dominated.
 And the abstract system takes over from the physical, organic situation.
 And this is my big pitch, if I'm going to make a big pitch, is that we've run into a
 cultural situation where we've confused the symbol with the physical reality, the money
 with the wealth, and the menu with the dinner.
 And we're starving on eating menus.
 Well, now, what I want to do is have a mutual brain picking session.
 And I'm going to start the ball rolling by saying why I, as a philosopher, am interested
 in many things that you are all probably interested in professionally.
 Basically, what we're going to talk about, I suppose, is the problem of control.
 As exemplified in the ancient Latin question, "Quis custodia custodiae ipsos," who guards
 the guards?
 Now we know that we're living in an age when there's been an enormous proliferation of
 techniques for subjecting every kind of natural process outside the human skin and now increasingly
 inside the human skin to some form of rational control.
 And as we succeed in doing this, it also becomes apparent that we're failing, that the process
 becomes of such a high degree of complexity that we begin to feel that we're standing
 in our own way, that everybody complains.
 The state of affairs in the modern world, in the technological world, is so complicated
 that nobody can understand it, and nobody really knows what to do.
 That for example, you want to run a small business and you find you run into such enormous
 legal hassles that you need so many secretaries to do the paperwork, that you can hardly do
 the business, that you're trying to run a hospital, but that you have to spend so much
 time making records and writing things down on paper that you don't have much time to
 practice medicine, that you're trying to run a university.
 And the requirements, the recording, the endless red tape of the registrar's office and the
 administration building is such that the actual work of research and teaching is seriously
 hampered.
 And so the individual increasingly feels himself obstructed by his own cautiousness.
 This is basically what it is.
 Now, to explain myself first of all, because most of you are strangers to me, I am a philosopher
 who has for many years been interested in the mutual fructification of Eastern cultures
 and Western cultures, studying Oriental ideas, not in the spirit of saying to the West, "You
 ought to be converted to Oriental ideas," but in the spirit of saying, "You don't understand
 the basic assumptions of your own culture if your own culture is the only culture you
 know."
 Everybody operates on certain basic assumptions, but very few people know what they are.
 You can say, I very often encounter the sort of character who's an American businessman,
 and he says, "Well, I'm a practical businessman.
 I believe in getting results and things done.
 All this thinking and highfalutin logic and nonsense is of no concern to me."
 Now, I know that the practical basic assumptions, the metaphysics of that man, can be defined
 as pragmatism, as a school of philosophy.
 But it's bad pragmatism because he's never thought it through.
 And so it's very difficult, you see, to get down to what are your basic assumptions.
 What do you mean by the good life?
 What do you mean by consistency?
 What do you mean by rationality?
 The only way of finding out what you mean by these things is by contrasting the way
 you look at something by the way it's looked at in another culture.
 And therefore we have to find cultures which are in some ways as sophisticated as our own,
 but as different from our own as possible.
 And of course for this purpose I always thought that the Chinese were optimal, and the Indians,
 the East Indians.
 And that by studying the ideas of these people, by studying their life goals, we could become
 more aware of our own.
 It's the old principle of triangulation.
 You don't establish the situation of a particular object unless you observe it from two different
 points of view, and thereby calculate its actual distance from you.
 So by looking at what we are pleased to call reality, the physical world, from the basic
 standpoints of different cultures, I think we're in a better position to know where we
 are than if we only have one single line of sight.
 And therefore this has been my interest and my background.
 And arising out of this there has come a further question which I would call the problems of
 human ecology.
 How is man to be best related to his environment, especially in circumstances where we are in
 possession of an extremely powerful technology, and have therefore the capacity to change
 our environment far more than anyone else has ever been able to do so?
 Are we going to end up not by civilizing the world, but by Los Angeles-ing it?
 In other words, are we going to foul our own nest as a result of technology?
 But all this gets down to the basic question is, really, what are you going to do if you're
 God?
 If in other words you find yourself in charge of the world through technological powers,
 then instead of leaving evolution to what we used to call in the 19th century the blind
 processes of nature, that was begging the question to call them blind, but at any rate
 we say we're not going to leave evolution anymore to the blind forces of nature, but
 now we're going to direct it ourselves, because we are increasingly developing, say, control
 over genetic systems, control over the nervous system, control over all kinds of systems.
 Then simply what do you want to do with it?
 But most people don't know what they want, and have never even seriously confronted the
 question of what they want.
 You ask a group of students to sit down and write a solid paper of 20 pages on what is
 your idea of heaven, what would you really like to happen if you could make it happen,
 and that's the first thing that starts people really thinking, because you soon realize
 that a lot of the things you think you would want are not things you want at all.
 Supposing just for the sake of illustration, you had the power to dream every night any
 dream you wanted to dream, and you could of course arrange for one night of dreams to
 be 75 years of subjective time, or any number of years of subjective time, what would you
 do?
 Well of course you'd start out by fulfilling every wish.
 You would have routes and orgies and all the most magnificent food and sexual partners
 and everything you could possibly imagine in that direction.
 When you got tired of that, after several nights you would switch a bit and you'd soon
 find yourself involved in adventures and contemplating great works of art, fantastic mathematical
 conceptions, you would soon be rescuing princesses from dragons and all sorts of things like
 that, and then one night you'd say, "Now look, tonight what we're going to do is we're going
 to forget this dream is a dream, and we're going to be really shocked."
 And when you woke up from that one you'd say, "Oh, wasn't that an adventure?"
 Then you would think more and more far out ways to get involved and let go of control,
 knowing that you'd always come back to center in the end.
 But while you were involved in the dream you wouldn't know you were going to come back
 to center, be in control.
 And so eventually you'd be dreaming a dream in which you found yourselves all sitting
 around in this room, listening to me talking, all involved with the particular life problems
 which you have.
 And maybe that's what you're doing.
 But here's the difficulty, you see.
 The difficulty of control.
 Are you wise enough to play at being God?
 And to understand what that question means we've got to go back to metaphysical assumptions
 underlying Western common sense.
 And whether you are a Jew or a Christian or an agnostic or an atheist, you are not uninfluenced
 by the whole tradition of Western culture.
 The models of the universe which it has employed, which influence our very language, the structure
 of our thought, the very constitution of logic, which are going into, say, computers.
 The Western model of the universe is political and engineering or architectural.
 It is natural for a child to ask its mother, "How was I made?"
 It would be inconceivable for a Chinese child to ask, "How was I made?"
 It might ask, "How was I grown?" or "How did I grow?"
 But not, "How was I made?" as if I were an artifact, something put together, something
 which is a construct.
 But all Western thought is based on the idea that the universe is a construct.
 And even when we got rid of the idea of the constructor, the personal God, we continued
 to think of the world in terms of the machine, in terms, say, of Newtonian mechanics, and
 later in terms of what we call quantum mechanics, although I find it rather difficult to understand
 how quantum theory is in any sense mechanics.
 It's much more like organics, which is to me a different concept.
 However that may be, it has percolated, you see, into the roots of our common sense, that
 the world is a construct, is an artifact.
 And therefore, as one understands the operations of the machine by analysis of its parts, by
 separating them into their original bits, we have bitted the cosmos and see everything
 going on in terms of bits, bits of information, and have found that this is extremely fruitful
 in enabling us to control what's happening.
 After all, the whole of Western technology is the result of bitting.
 Let's suppose, you know, you want to eat a chicken, you can't eat the whole chicken at
 once.
 You have to bite it.
 You have to reduce it to bits.
 But you don't get a cut-up fryer out of an egg.
 It doesn't come that way.
 So what has happened is this, that we don't know the origins of all this.
 This may go back thousands of years.
 The way we develop the art of thinking, which is essentially calculus, is this.
 The universe as it comes in nature, the physical universe, is something like a Rorschach block.
 It's all wiggles.
 We who live in cities are not really used to this because we build everything in straight
 lines and rectangles and so on.
 Wherever you see this sort of thing, you know human beings have been around because they're
 always trying to straighten things out.
 But nature itself is clouds, is water, is the outlines of continents, is mountains,
 is biological existences, and all of them wiggle.
 And wiggly things are to human consciousness a little bit of a nuisance, because we want
 to figure it out.
 And it is as if, therefore, some ancient fisherman one day held up his net and looked at the
 world through the net.
 And he said, "My, just think of that.
 There I can see the view, and it's one, and that peak of that mountain is one, two, three,
 four, five, six holes across.
 And the base is one, two, three, four, five holes down.
 Now I've got its number."
 See?
 And so the lines of latitude and longitude, the lines of celestial and terrestrial latitude
 and longitude, the whole idea of a matrix, of a looking at things through graph paper
 painted on, printed on cellophane, is the basic idea of measurement.
 This is the way we calculate.
 We break down the wiggliness of the world into comprehensible, countable, geometrical
 units, and thereby figure it and construct it in those terms.
 And this is so successful, up to a point, that we can, of course, come to imagine that
 this is the way the physical world really is.
 Discrete, discontinuous, full of points, in fact, a mechanism.
 But I want to just put into your mind the notion that this may be the prejudice of a
 certain personality type.
 You see, in the history of philosophy and poetry and art, we always find the interchange
 of two personality types, which I call prickles and goo.
 The prickly people are advocates of intellectual porcupinism.
 They want a rigor.
 They want precise statistics.
 And they have a sudden clipped attitude in their voices, and you know this very well
 in academic circles.
 And they accuse other people of being disgustingly vague and miasmic and mystical.
 But the vague, miasmic and mystical people accuse the prickly people of being mere skeletons
 with no flesh on their bones.
 And they say to you, "You just rattle.
 You're not really a human being.
 You know the words, but you don't know the music."
 And so therefore, if you belong to the prickly type, you hope that the ultimate constituent
 of matter is particles.
 If you belong to the gooey type, you hope it's waves.
 If you prickly, you're a classicist.
 And if you're gooey, you're a romanticist.
 And going back into medieval philosophy, if you're prickly, you're a nominalist.
 If you're gooey, you're a realist.
 And so it goes.
 But we know very well that this natural universe is neither prickles nor goo exclusively.
 It's gooey prickles and prickly goo.
 And you see, it all depends on your level of magnification.
 If you've got your magnification on something so that the focus is clear, you've got a prickly
 point of view.
 You've got structure, shape, clearly outlined, sharply defined.
 The little out of focus is going to go bleh.
 And you've got goo.
 But we're always playing with the two.
 Because it's like the question is, is the world basically stuff, like matter?
 Or is it basically structure?
 Well we find out, of course, today that in science we don't consider the idea of matter,
 of just there being some sort of stuff.
 Because supposing you wanted to describe stuff, in what terms would you describe it?
 You always have to describe it in terms of structure.
 Something countable, something that can be designated as a pattern.
 So we never get to any basic stuff.
 It seems to me that this way of thinking is based on a form of consciousness which we
 could best call scanning.
 The capacity to divide experiences into bits is somehow related to a physical facility
 which corresponds to sweeping a radar beam or a spotlight over the environment.
 The advantage of the spotlight is it gives you intensely concentrated light on restricted
 areas.
 A floodlight, by comparison, has less intensity.
 But if you examine, say, this room were in total darkness, and you used the spotlight,
 very thin beam, and you scanned the room with it, you would have to retain in memory all
 the areas over which it passed, and then by an additive process you would make out the
 contours of the room.
 And it seems to me that this is something in which civilized man, both in the East and
 in the West, has specialized.
 In a method of paying attention to things which we call noticing, and therefore it's
 highly selective, it picks out, it's punctive, it picks out features in the environment which
 we say are noteworthy, and which we therefore register with a notation, be it the notation
 of words, the notation of numbers, or such a notation, say, as algebra or music.
 So that we notice those things, only those things, for which we have notation.
 When a child, very often a child will point at something and say to its parents, "What's
 that?" and they're not clear what the child is pointing to.
 The child is pointed to something which we consider is not a thing.
 The child is pointed to an area, say, of funny pattern on a dirty wall, and has noticed a
 figure on it, but the child doesn't have a word for it and says, "What's that?"
 And the adult says, "Oh, that's just a mess."
 Because that doesn't count for us as a thing.
 You come through this to the understanding, what do you mean by a thing?
 It's very fascinating to ask children, "What do you mean by a thing?"
 And they don't know, because it's one of the unexamined suppositions of the culture.
 What do you mean by an event?
 Well everybody knows what an event is, but nobody can say.
 Because a thing is a think.
 It's a unit of thought, like an inch is a unit of measurement.
 And so we thing the world, that is to say, in order to measure a curve, you have to reduce
 it to point instance, and apply the calculus, so in exactly the same way, in order to discuss
 or talk about the universe, you have to reduce it to things.
 But each thing or think is as it were, one grasp of that spotlight.
 Going, "chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp" like this, you see?
 So we reduce the infinite wiggliness of the world to grasps, or bits, we're getting back
 to biting, you see, the idea of the teeth, to grasps of thought.
 And so we thereby describe the world in terms of things, just as that fisherman could describe
 his view by the number of net hole over, through which the view was showing.
 And this has been the immensely, and apparently successful enterprise of all technological
 culture, superbly emphasized by ourselves.


{END}
Wait Time : 0.00 sec
Model Load: 0.82 sec
Decoding  : 2.98 sec
Transcribe: 4213.84 sec
Total Time: 4217.64 sec