The Book, On the Taboo Against Knowing Who you Are

Another notion is the Ceramic Model of the world in which we think that the universe is made up of some substance or substances leading to impossible questions such as:

Unanswerable questions must be considered to have been asked in the wrong way. As formless matter or matterless form has never been discovered we must assume that the Ceramic Model is wrong. Form and matter are not two separate things but merely two different aspects of the same thing.
Matter and meter are words that derive from the Sanskrit matr, to measure. Meaning that the world of matter is nothing more than that which we measure by nets, grids, inches and pounds. Measured form becomes matter.

But in the West we consider the act of measuring form to engender something called matter which then leads us to wonder how on earth mere matter can move about, think, and become an "independent" person. This then leads us to think that there must be an outside source to this independent person, something that causes it to become animate, something that created it, something we then term god.

 

This independent agent, this something that animates mere matter, in the popular image, was modeled on the period kings and patriarchs. A merciful yet stern and demanding ruler of those beneath his oversight and outside of themselves.
As such we could trust that our lives were governed by someone more intelligent, more important, and more aware of the whole picture of the kingdom at large. We need not fear abandonment as what king doesn't love his subjects and seek to provide for their well being, otherwise his kingdom fails.
But with this protection and oversight comes the need to acknowledge the superiority of the king and obey his edicts, or feel the wrath of said king. For to disobey upsets the workings of the kingdom.
Of course unlike a king, this image of God is an image of an all seeing, all knowing being; and who wants to be watched every moment of every day?
Eventually many in the West realized the shortcomings of this model and grew tired of it and the idea of an all knowing, all seeing God was discarded.

The Deists, such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine held that God created the universe, then went away leaving us on our own.
The atheists and agnostics held that the universe created itself by accident.

 

An accidental birth came to be the generally accepted explanation of the origin of the universe. A mishmash of irreducible atoms randomly combining to form rocks, trees, animals, man, and eventually mind. But if random events could form all of those things, then another random event or events could also unform, or destroy them just as easily.
Therefore mankind must control this unintelligent mess to prevent that from happening, as there is no god. There is no one to save the world but us.

The myth of the "Fully Automatic Universe" was born and the sooner you realized that chaos could result at any time the stronger and more rational you were.
Nature had to be analyzed as though it were a machine, broken down into parts, mechanisms, cause and effects.
On the plus side this led to fantastic advances in science and technology. On the negative side it led to an incomplete understanding of what was gong on. Instead of asking what does it do, we asked what it is made of.

The man behind the microscope
Has this advice for you:
"Instead of asking what it is,
Just ask, 'What does it do?'"​

 

Well, it's still incredibly odd, and fascinating at the same time. Why does nature put such an emphasis on survival and reproduction? Is there something to be gained, or something to be lost, and if so what?

When you think about it are we much different from cave men and women, other than having ever more new and ever greater complicated social and technological patterns? Or for that matter a mosquito?

 

But going beyond what is it and then asking what does it do still isn't enough, we also need to include where is it, in what surroundings?

If we consider the human body we must ask what it is, then what does it do, and finally what are its surroundings?
Asking what it is or what it is doing without considering its surroundings is to entirely void whatever conclusions we can draw as to what it is and what its doing.
A human body laying on a sanding beach in Bermuda is completely different from a human body in a vacuum.

In astrology a horoscope is drawn depicting the state of the universe at moment of one's birth. It is a rough, incomplete, and inaccurate picture that has little practical validity. But the theory behind it is that you are an intricate part of the universe. You are not in your body or just your body, you are a particular aspect of the entire universe.

To modern, rational man this is an unrealistic view of the self. Each of us is a separate individual which can exist on its own. But if we are removed from our proper environment we die. We are not an irreducible separate thing, or part; the only irreducible thing is the totally of the universe. We can subjectively divide it up by giving different aspects certain names, but we are dividing it up in name only. In precisely the same way, the individual is separate from his universal environment only in name.

 

On the other hand society declares we are not separate, but part of the group. Immerse social pressures are brought to bear in the form of telling us how to act, what roles we play in jobs and social functions, how to talk, what attitudes to assume, etc.. Even our thoughts and emotions are influenced by language and our parents and peers. Excrement smells bad, vomiting is unpleasant, and death is to be dreaded.
Social pressures assure us that we are inseparable from the group, but at the same time they then turn around and tell us how great we are as an individual!

This is known as a double bind.
Children are taught that they are responsible for their own actions, they have a mind of their own, they are unique. Yet when they act in a contradictory manner to what the parent expects they are chastised. "You must put away your toys", "Good girls don't act like that", "It's time to go to sleep", "Don't talk back", on and on. The child is placed in a position where he or she is told that they are a responsible individual human being, a free agent, and then made to conform to society's rules.

 

I don't quite follow. Are you criticizing his writing style or concepts?

 

The Sanskrit Arthashastra describes the rules of society for a monarch:
Trust no one.
Have no close friends.
Organize the government in concentric circles of alternating rings of enemies and those deposed to agree with you. Divide et impera.
Meanwhile, remain in the inner chambers surrounded by guards who guard guards.
Have a secret passage for escape,
and remember you can never win.

 

"Classic" logic has a long history in spiritual practices. The historical Buddha used logic, Nagarjuna used logic, there are Buddhist schools of logic, the Rig Veda has sections based on logic, and Nyaya is a school of Hindu logic. So Watts is merely following in their steps. But besides that I'm not really sure what you mean when you describe what Watts has written in this book as classic logic. In my understanding classic logic implies conclusions that are either true or false. Fuzzy logic implies a variation of true/falseness. It seems to me Watts whole point is to transcend the idea of truth and falseness completely, so I don't know what you mean.
Regardless I don't really care about writing style other than some styles are easier and or more enjoyable to read than others.

I've read some Deng Meng Dao. It's okay.

 

So we have an individual who is seen as a free agent, yet commanded to obey the tenets of society and the double bind is set up.
But a third possibility exists as a means to escape the double bind and that is that the individual is a point of expression of the entire universe. In this way the ego is retained but not seen as something that must survive. Free reign is given to the individual to be a free agent, to conform to society, and yet not be pigeonholed into being one or the other.
We can exists as a unique individual without fearing the total destruction of that individual through death, as as an inseparable part of the universe death is merely a transition, not a finality.

 

How so?

Could you elaborate?

​

 

As we live in this double bind we are continually taught to work toward a reward. First in grade and secondary school, then collage, then getting a good job, excelling in the job, and finally attaining retirement.

All this is fine if we approach it as a game to be enjoyed and not as away to earn money to purchase some future reward at the expense of living today.

In other words we, in particular Americans, have become materialist in the sense that we seek material gains as a means to enjoyment instead of pure enjoyment. But Watts then tells us if we were truly materialists we would act differently.

 

And while we rely on material goods for happiness the world is continually falling apart. Impermanence reigns.
In the past two different solutions to this fact were prevalent. One answer was to withdraw from the world and material things by becoming an ascetics or joining a religious faction and renouncing the world, thus escaping the process of trying to find happiness through material gain.
The other was to consider material objects to gifts from God and they should be used as a means to praise God as an object of devotion, as seen in the architecture of the fantastic Gothic cathedrals.
Both solutions are founded upon the premise that man, or his or her ego is separate from God, or the creation, or universe. Something that must be held onto or rejected apart from oneself.

But a third possibility exists, that is to see the world not apart from oneself, but as the world itself. To see oneself as merely another part of the continuing never ending, never beginning process.