The Book, On the Taboo Against Knowing Who you Are

I remember reading this, about 30 years ago and noticing that his logic was flawed. He's still attempting to use linear concepts and classic logic to describe nonlinear dynamics, and fails miserably. However, I can vouch for all the rest of his work. This book is not his best for logic, but is a good introduction to the subject for teens in particular.

 

His first example of reality being composed of Kibbles and bits is a good example. Its not a social convention, to kick something in frustration. He means well.

 

Nah, I know all his work. He's a Zen academic, and that tells you everything you need to know about how he writes. I could even go through all his books and correct all the linguistic logic errors, using a computer. Academics are so smart, they believe they comprehend language, when they don't even teach their children how to use a dictionary.

Honesty is such a lonely word, its on sale at Walmart.

 

what is a non-conceptual manor? how does one think a non-thought?
well there is one thing i think i've experienced that comes close, and that is sitting on a nice flat rock, out in the woods somewhere, and meditating, which means to allow the ceasless flow of internal dialog to cease, which is generally what i do, minus the rock and the forest, when i wish to go to sleep.

also nothing needs to be governed as such, other then self governed, to avoid destroying itself and everything else in the process. the whole idea of hierarchy is only of any positive use, when it prevents the causing of harm and unhappiness.

 

He is struggling to describe the concepts of Wu Wei Wu and Chi. Like I said, this is his earlier work, and not his best, but a great introduction to Asian philosophy for countless people.

 

I read this post after watching my favorite Outer Limits rerun, "Tempests". On his way home to deliver a serum which will save earth's population, including his wife and son, the hero crashes on an alien planet, is bitten by a spider-like creature, and hallucinates. Most of the rest of the show has him alternating between a scenario in which he escapes, makes it back to earth, and rescues everybody and one in which he is still stuck on the planet and can't make it back with the serum. The viewer is wondering which is real and which is the illusion, but at the end we see him being devoured by the spiders and realize that both were illusions. Your three alternatives makes me feel like I'm watching a variation of the rerun.

All three of your possibilities are metaphysical conceptualizations which seem to be untestable and essentially speculative. We can try to figure out which is right, but stand a high risk of getting it wrong. When I stub my toe on the bedpost at night, it seems very real and material, although I understand that microscopic analysis would show it to be less solid than it appears. All three "solutions" are constructs that may "work" for purposes of orientation, finding meaning, getting us through the day and life. From a pragmatic standpoint, if it seems to "work" for us in performing those functions, we tend to stick to it. And I think most of us simply adopt the world view of those around us, out of "rational ignorance'--a conscious or unconscious decision to invest our time and mental energy on matters of immediate survival value and leave it to the "exerts" to solve the metaphysical problems. After a busy day hunting mammoths, our ancestors just wanted to relax by the fire with the wife and kids and let the shaman figure out what to do to bring the game. The downside is that the shaman may be schizophrenic or a charlatan, but that's the price we pay to free up our time.

For those of us who don't see ignorance as rational, keeping all the alternatives in mind can be useful. I'm generally inclined toward the Old Testament view that God is ineffable and trying to put a face on it is risky, but I also sympathize with the Hindu perspective that it's really difficult for humans to avoid doing that. The first alternative like the scenario in which the hero is trapped on the planet, trying desperately to make the best of a bad situation. I'm reminded of words from a prayer of my youth, the Hail Holy Queen, in which we "banished children of Eve" "send up our sighs" and beg Mary's help for us who are "mourning and weeping in this vail of tears." Life, for some more than others, has that aspect,. But on the other hand, "its a great, big wonderful world we live in!" Seeing the material world as basically good is not necessarily simply a crass strategy for material gain. A Marxist materialist outlook, for example, could help to make us aware of how metaphysical beliefs like samsara, dharma, reincarnation and karma helped to support a caste system by justifying victimhood. But Marxism, like all reductionist materialistic models, has its own limitations. In The Matter Myth, physicists Paul Davies and John Gribbin see the advent of relativity and quantum physics, with the concepts of chaos, uncertainty and virtual particles, as a challenge to materialistic, mechanistic, deterministic models of reality.

I personally am inclined toward door #3, mainly because it helps to solve the theodicy problem and seems to be consistent with science and my basic values. The shamans I'm attracted to are progressive theologian Marcus Borg, who offers a panentheist version of Christianity, and process theologian Charles Hartshorne, who developed a dynamic approach to God and reality based on the philosophy of mathematician/philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. But mine has a Native American flavor reflecting my heritage. Orenda is an Iriquois term for" extraordinary invisible power believed to pervade in varying degrees all animate and inanimate natural objects as a transmissible spiritual energy..." Definition of ORENDA Gitchi Manitou and Wakan tanka mean Great Spirit or Great Mystery in Algonquian and Lakota traditions, respectively. Not too different from Taoism, with its ineffability and harmonious balance of Yin and Yang, or the Egyptian Maat, responsible for the harmonious balance of physical and moral reality. I'd call my outlook, from a religious standpoint, "dynamic panendeism":: "dynamic" in the sense that it's shaped by process theology; "panen" in that it sees the divine as immanent in nature, as well as transcendent; "deist", in that its ways and purposes are not necessarily anthropomorphic and centered around us. To put it in more modern, scientific terms, .I think of God as being more like Superstring than the Dude in the Sky, but am willing to attribute a degree of intelligence to the process. The intelligence may be computational ( the ability to" perceive its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of achieving its goals".Computational intelligence : David L. Poole : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive and thinking/acting "rationally"Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 4th US ed. We have to account for the integrated complexity and fine tuning of the multiverse in some way. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn at the end of the story that we're being eaten by spiders.

 

It see,ms incredibly odd (and reductionist) to refer to humans as "simple tubes". Sounds like something only a simple tube or something could come up with. I hope we've gotten way beyond that!

 

Possibly because we are. I think there's ample scientific basis for thinking we're separate organisms governed by separate nervous systems.

Actually, science largely confirms the feeling, but does establish that we are interdependent with our environment, including each other.

Actually, we do both.

The fact that we are part of something doesn't mean we're indistinguishable from it.

That's quite an over-generalization. Sociobiologist E.O. Wilson thinks humans early on developed separate modules in their brains attuned to self-interest and common societal interest, and that we are constantly struggling between the two. In Freudian terms, this is the struggle between ego and id.

Sounds pretty dogmatic right there.

 

Did the "I" who cut the grass exist as an entity? Were you really separate from the grass you cut? Were "you" driving the van, or was the van driving you, or did you both drive as a single process?

 

Hmmmmmm. I am the entire universe? Am I the multiverse too? Am I my own grandpa, and great grandpa, as well? That will take a lot of convincing!

Yes, in the past when we knew little about physiology and anatomy, many societies thought it was in the heart. But I think there's a reasonable basis for believing that the critical organ involved in generating human consciousness is the brain. Without the brain there can be no consciousness. Even little changes in brain functioning brings dramatic changes in consciousness. The Penfield experiment revealed that stimulation of the temporal lobes would cause patients to relive past experiences. (1952). "Memory Mechanisms". Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry. 67 (2): 178–198. Scientists have identified areas of the cortex which seem to be the source of neural consciousness..
Harvard Scientists Think They've Pinpointed The Physical Source of Consciousness.
Insight Into the 'Seat of Human Consciousness' - Neuroscience News

 

Are these all "social fictions"? Calling them that doesn't make it so. The term "fiction" suggests that the thing thus designated is untrue. Sometimes, in the case of legal fictions, this is a knowing result of convention. In law, for example, the behavior of a hypothetical "reasonable person: is used to judge negligence in civil and criminal cases. That concept can be useful, but we know there is no such person. And in literature, fiction can convey truths more effectively than prose. Nevertheless, Watts seems to be using the term to convey falsehood.

Atoms & "Stuff". Last I looked, things were still made up of separate bits (atoms), and are the smallest particles that take part in a chemical reaction, although atoms can further be divided into protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Independent egos. As far as egos are concerned, it seems to me that humans have them, and efforts to deny it are specious. I'm certainly a different person as an adult than I was as a kid in many respects, both physically and mentally. But there's continuity of consciousness. My memory traces go back to age four, and I identify with that self.

Light vs. Darkness. The war of light against darkness sounds Zoroastrian, Essene and early Christian. It's probably most vividly articulated in Revelation, which is big in Evangelical circles. I think it;s fictitious, So in communities where that's a big deal, you might accurately call it a social fiction. Some in our society people may believe it, lots of others don't.

Death & Evil. Death is something I'd like to avoid as long as I can, because I find life so satisfying. I wouldn't call it "evil", and haven't heard that term use for it even from religious people. It's true that St. Paul talked about Death as though it were a cosmic power or person and credited Jesus for defeating it through His resurrection. Ultra-fundamentalists might share that view, but most of us realize that death and taxes are natural and inevitable.

Human Superiority. Much as I like other species, I do consider that there's something special about human consciousness and superior reason that gives us he edge. Of course, I'm understandably biased, since I'm human myself.The concept of striving to control nature needs to be clarified, but I'm glad we have some control over it.

 

The unanswered questions - Wikipedia

10 Unanswerable Questions that Neither Science nor Religion can Answer
99 Unanswerable Questions and the Unintended Consequences of the Future We’re Creating
120 Unanswerable Questions (Mind Blowing Questions)
300+ Unanswerable Questions That Has No Answer | TheMindFool.
One way to handle unanswerable questions is to dodge them . Even better, to be self-righteous about doing so. The Sabbasava Sutta identifies 16 questions which are unwise reflection" because they lead to attachment to views concerning self::The unanswered questions - Wikipedia

1. What am I?
2. How am I?
3. Am I?
4. Am I not?
5. Did I exist in the past?
6. Did I not exist in the past?
7. What was I in the past?
8. How was I in the past?
9. Having been what, did I become what in the past?
10. Shall I exist in future?
11. Shall I not exist in future?
12. What shall I be in future?
13. How shall I be in future?
14. Having been what, shall I become what in future?
15. Whence came this person?
16. Whither will he go?

BTW. Does Watts deny the existence of matter? Do you deny it?

 

there is a very simple way in which we are both seperate and one, and that is to consider the air inside a jar with its lid open.
the jar defines a distinct unit, yet the air inside of it, as long as it remains unlidded or has no lid, remains contiguous with all of the air in an atmosphere.

1: an awareness that observes
2: how am i what? question lacks specification.
3; apearantly
4; that would be rather difficult
5; the immediate past at least, further back quite probably
6; many believe this, though there is no hard evidence to support either as being more likely then the other
7; whatever else, the essential me was what it is now, and may well continue to be, what i was and am at 1
8' again, how was i what?
9' to a degree, all things change in some ways over time, yet as a pointless point that observes, there is nothing it has, no deminsion or form, to change.
10; i may be living the 9th of my nine lives now, but the unknown is unknown, and the diversity of possibilities is no less then infinite
11; this is one of those infinite possibilities, but it is just another among all of them
12' i will remain a single point that observers, whatever physical form that point may or may not become associated with
13; i still don't "get" the question
14; how does this differ from the points already raised?
15/16 came/went? matter is not the question he was dealing with, as existence may not need entirely to depend upon it.

i remember, if that can be fairly used as a word for it, which in a physical only sense it cannot,
but before i was assigned to be associated with physical forms at all, there was this blank sheet of graph paper that extended in all directions, forever as far as i can tell,
and then trees started to appear on it, like lollipop trees and the intersections of the graph, but as time went on, mountains formed and everything became incresingly nuanced and complex, like fractilation. other matters became more complex as well, a growing awareness that other awarenesses existed, and even the beginnings of personal one personal relationship, though of no recognizable nor definable form.

i think people way over rate the importance of what watts is doing here, except perhaps, to open eyes to the realization that the possibilities they are familiar with, are never the only ones that can exist.

oh yes, there was some formless form, or an almost solid sense of it being there, behind and beyond the graph paper and putting the trees on it, and maybe even the forming of mountains under it, yet i somehow suspect my own involvement in visioning their complexity, and by that, i don't mean exclusively or more then anyone else's, rather it being kind of universally participatory.

as to the point of being born with such an image, that is only in the same way that there is any to the concept of history.

personally i find "common sense" and "tradtion" (the dominant 'western' 'tradtion'), more at odds with each other then ever not.