Alan Watts

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Alan Watts? Isn't he lead singer of the lost prophets?

Ian Watkins.

[Mudhammam]

I have his book "On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are." My feelings on it are mixed. On the one hand, I don't dismiss his ideas as vapid and meaningless---I think to do so is probably to misunderstand him or be too simple-minded. There's a lot of truth to his insights and he always has an interesting take on things. On the other hand, while I like reading about mystics, I'd rather view the world as it "really is," as much as possible, and not what feels practical or merely "true for me," though I don't doubt there is a time and place for that. What I mean to say is that I think Watts is correct about the illusion of the ego but I also don't think objects "out there" in the world aren't really "out there."

[Chili]

Sorry for the shortness. I'm curious about what everyone thinks of Alan Watts and his ideas.

I read "The Supreme Identity" and "Behold the Spirit."

Not sure about his ideas, but I remember his words "beyond theology" to be very descriptive of the state of mind Joseph endured while Christ was born onto him.

We can call this 'beyond reason' as non-rational, and I place this just opposite to the famous 'altar call' event [of any sort] when searching souls accept Jesus as their Lord and savior . . . as if something is wrong with them and they need a crutch to lean on with the promise made of better days ahead after they die.

In his lean towards Zen, Watts called this an abomination that I would call a fornication of the [so called] child within because a partial enlightenment is provoked by the 'public exhibition' (often including some sort of a confession) that surrounds the event.

This would be just opposite to the Gospel's "thief in the night" that Zen tries to provoke with it's subtle Zen technique, that is believed can do this on its own. A rosary can do the same, and in Africa they try it with placing peas from one pot into another and back again the next day. All they are trying to do is reach this 'relaxed' (?) state of mind that he called 'beyond theology' for a spark to fly from our left to our right, while the evangelist tries to yank a rip in the hymen between our left and our right . . . and they will be singing "I have seen the light" from that moment on and Jesus is alive in them, so they say.

Not sure why Watts became a drunk, and why would he, someone might ask.

[Cato]

On the one hand, I don't dismiss his ideas as vapid and meaningless---I think to do so is probably to misunderstand him or be too simple-minded.

Bullocks.

You and I are all as much continuous with the physical universe as a wave is continuous with the ocean.

Omnipotence is not knowing how everything is done; it's just doing it.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/author...watts.html

Mystics share a common trait. They tend to torture language into flowery statements meant to make the banal and absurd sound profound.

[Chili]

//

Omnipotence is not knowing how everything is done; it's just doing it.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/author...watts.html

//

Good point, and that why 'those in the know do not say' and just do what others are trying to say, and that is why the test of a mystic is how well he can keep it a secret, they say.

[Mudhammam]

On the one hand, I don't dismiss his ideas as vapid and meaningless---I think to do so is probably to misunderstand him or be too simple-minded.

Bullocks.

You and I are all as much continuous with the physical universe as a wave is continuous with the ocean.

I don't think you could have picked a better example to demonstrate my point. That statement, I think, is both absurd and profound, but far from banal. The fact is every atom in your body has existed since the big bang and will continue to do so long after your mind is destroyed. Bodies of matter are like continuous waves in an ocean that perpetuates ever-changing forms, then dissolves them, and the process repeating ad infinitum. Another way of putting it is that you may very well, at this moment, be inhaling molecules that were once the brain of Plato. Many rightly find that thought quite mystical.

Omnipotence is not knowing how everything is done; it's just doing it.

I find that statement as silly as you but it also might make more sense if I had the context. Like I said, I don't agree with a lot of Watt's ideas, and there certainly is some woo. But I find quite a bit of truth in the following quotes, eloquently expressed:

"There is a growing apprehension that existence is a rat-race in a trap: living organisms, including people, are merely tubes which put things in at one end and let them out at the other, which both keeps them doing it and in the long run wears them out."

"Most philosophical problems are to be solved by getting rid of them, by coming to the point where you see that such questions as “Why this universe?” are a kind of intellectual neurosis, a misuse of words in that the question sounds sensible but is actually as meaningless as asking “Where is this universe?” when the only things that are anywhere must be somewhere inside the universe. The task of philosophy is to cure people of such nonsense. . . . Nevertheless, wonder is not a disease. Wonder, and its expression in poetry and the arts, are among the most important things which seem to distinguish men from other animals, and intelligent and sensitive people from morons."

"We suffer from a hallucination, from a false and distorted sensation of our own existence as living organisms. Most of us have the sensation that “I myself” is a separate center of feeling and action, living inside and bounded by the physical body — a center which “confronts” an “external” world of people and things, making contact through the senses with a universe both alien and strange. Everyday figures of speech reflect this illusion. “I came into this world.” “You must face reality.” “The conquest of nature.”

This feeling of being lonely and very temporary visitors in the universe is in flat contradiction to everything known about man (and all other living organisms) in the sciences. We do not “come into” this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean “waves,” the universe “peoples.” Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe. This fact is rarely, if ever, experienced by most individuals. Even those who know it to be true in theory do not sense or feel it, but continue to be aware of themselves as isolated “egos” inside bags of skin."

I could give countless more examples.

Mystics share a common trait. They tend to torture language into flowery statements meant to make the banal and absurd sound profound.

Not exactly. That may be true of some, but not all. Many simply emphasize a difference aspect about the human experience, namely, the subjective, and there's no point in arguing the validity of that, which is why they don't.

[psychoslice]

Alan Watts, a great thinker and a great drinker, I like everything he does.

[Cato]

I don't think you could have picked a better example to demonstrate my point. That statement, I think, is both absurd and profound, but far from banal. The fact is every atom in your body has existed since the big bang and will continue to do so long after your mind is destroyed. Bodies of matter are like continuous waves in an ocean that perpetuates ever-changing forms, then dissolves them, and the process repeating ad infinitum. Another way of putting it is that you may very well, at this moment, be inhaling molecules that were once the brain of Plato. Many rightly find that thought quite mystical.

First, a bit of nitpicky housekeeping. Only hydrogen, helium, lithium, and beryllium have existed since the Big Bang. Even this is inaccurate since recombination didn't kick in for ~400K years. Stars can create elements as heavy as iron; supernovae are required for the rest. I'm being nitpicky, but agree with your intended meaning.

I had the same thought when I first read this quote, but I cannot be as charitable regarding Watts. I could appreciate his thought and let it go if I thought he was simply being poetic, but I can't bring myself to ignore his adherence to panpsychism when I read this. Watts isn't just saying we are made of elements strewn throughout the universe, he is suggesting that we are part of a greater universal consciousness. This is how the profound becomes mystical gibberish.

My enthusiasm in considering the ingestion of what was once part of Plato's brain is tempered by the realization that I may have very well ingested what was once Platonic shit.

I find that statement as silly as you but it also might make more sense if I had the context. Like I said, I don't agree with a lot of Watt's ideas, and there certainly is some woo. But I find quite a bit of truth in the following quotes, eloquently expressed:

Thanks for the following quotes. There is much in them that I like, particularly what I'll call the Wittgensteinian approach to dissolving philosophical problems. I have no problem with placing boundaries on the idea of self and quite like Watts' "coming out of the world"; however, I think he too quickly dismisses the "isolated egos inside bags of skin". Our constituent parts may have come out of the world, but our experiences laying the foundation and development of the self are unique and will forever disappear at death regardless of how long our constituent parts are re-purposed. Again, I think it is his adherence to an unsubstantiated panpsychism that muddies the waters when he gets to this point.

[Mudhammam]

Ha ha, Platonic shit. I appreciate this post, Cato. I don't think I could agree more with everything you said here, or stated it better. I also think panpsychism is totally wrong, but I have read essays on it that I can appreciate, if only because the person is thinking outside the box and is able to make it sound plausible. There's a lot we don't know about mind's relationship to matter, I would say, and science often benefits from ideas that initially seem totally outrageous. I'm not trying to sound like I'm a Watts "fan," because I don't consider myself one by any means, but I do tend to think important insights can go ignored when we simply disregard something as woo because it feels counterintuitive or sounds strange---that's not to single you out, but I mean in general; I think it was Sam Harris who said, to paraphrase, that the scientific community unfairly minimizes the value of exploring certain mystical experiences because the language is vague, but these ideas ARE often difficult to capture in cut and dry terms.