• grrgyle@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    But it’s cool.

    Just don’t go thinking it means anything other than nature is awesome.

    • onlinepersona
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      I just think there are better ways to say nature is awesome without adding mystics, new age stuff, or fantastical expressions to it. Then it starts turning into non-science.

      Anti Commercial-AI license

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        I like those better ways too, but I’m me and you’re you. I think the vulgarisation like in the op are good and useful as well. We’re not talking about Deepak Chopra here, just a little mycological poetry.

        I would use the word “special” rather than mystical, but the awesomeness of reality can often feel mystical. I think it’s ok to play with that as long as you aren’t making any serious claims, like we should order our social structure around fungi deity or something

        • cheesymoonshadow@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          I feel exactly the same way as how you described it. I think the quote from OP about the universe experiencing itself actually originated from Carl Sagan, who is as scientific and atheistic as you could ask for. It’s just a play on words.

          And then you have the likes of Deepak Chopra, who is the most disingenuous woowoo-talking charlatan in existence. If he said something like that, he would mean it literally.