Alan Watts and his views on knowing who you are

this evening I would like to explore a very interesting notion that Alan Watts developed in a very clever way clever and the better sense of course in a book he called the taboo against knowing the soul now have to understand that as a taboo against knowing the self and that's certainly true and in the book he explores all the different views about the self or the lack of it in philosophy and psychology and sociology and then he finally takes occasion to reflect back and give out his own view it's a worldview no basically there only a finite number of world views I'd like to present several so we can then contrast it with what Alan is doing the first which is traditional Christian Hebraic view is that there is a God and God had an idea and by focusing on that idea he then generated the universe and in the process of seven days each day he looked upon it after the completion of the creation and said it was good that means he was able then to look at what he did and compare it with some idea and he pronounced the relationship between the idea the universe or the model and copy as of such a nature is to say good as an artist might look upon his work and compared with what the ID he had in his mind and if he satisfied with it he would pronounce the creation as good this therefore has a beginning and will have an end this is the theological Christian Hebraic theological view and it also has a further development in plato's time is so it is a time is platonic idea of creation different of course rather than seven days it's a whole development metaphysical development but in any case we'll call this the theological model now I'd like to give the next model as the Advaita Vedanta the Advaita Vedanta holds this phenomenal universe as we experienced it is actually our delusion it's a delusion we are deluded about the true nature of this phenomenal universe because if we ever were to see the nature of reality and that state of reality we would it would reveal itself as being non dual now non dual strictly means now from the ad light of the dawn to viewpoint that there is no possible relationship between the phenomenal and the nature of ultimate reality there's no relationship and the example they give which is a very fine example is the old one of being in a forest or a jungle and you're shocked to discover a snake lies in your path and you run away from it come back with it later with some friends and to discover that what you thought to be a snake was not a snake at all but just a coiled rope now you projected upon it the snake that's a projection what they call an imposition in Hindu terms it's an imposition name form this is all an imposition to ask about the origin of the snake and where it's going what may come of it what the history of it doesn't make any sentence because basically it's an illusion therefore there is no relationship between the nature of reality and the phenomenal universe because it is in fact Maya or an illusion now we can now move in into another image and that is whatever happened in the beginning was a big bang and what we can see is simply the consequences of that enactments of the original Big Bang cosmic explosion and therefore the entire universe is nothing other than the working out of the implications of the Big Bang therefore in that sense the universe the universe unfolds from its origin and that unfolding is nothing other than the unfolding of time therefore this view of course is Steven Hawkings he presented it most dramatically and a book in a film called the history of time what's essential about this view is that the whole process involved in studying it uses a mathematical physical model which itself has no independent existence it's an artifact it's just a way of talking and describing so therefore the way we derive our knowledge of this is from an artifact and there's nothing particularly significant and eternal about the English language and equally well there's nothing particularly eternal about mathematics and physics it just happens to be an artifact we used to understand it in contrast to this view it's essentially it starts with the same basic idea that yes there was a big bang there is an unfoldment here is the universe then but this entire universe is not merely a history of time what it really shows is the structure of mathematics that is to say if you really understand the universe the physical universe but you really are stunted studying is mathematics and that's the basic language of the universe next up therefore there really is there really is a mathematics independent of creation there is a mathematics this is discovered it's not invented it's not an artifact and therefore with this language we can use it to fully comprehend this physical universe of ours and solve and what Eddy whatever problem that comes to us we can solve it with our tools in mathematics but mathematics itself presupposes a meta mathematics and that metamathematics takes a name and that is the meta meta meta meta learning better mathematics or a platonic a platonic world of ideas a platonic world of ideas sometimes called platonic forms because mathematics itself owes its existence to these platonic forms now this view as you probably know comes from someone who worked very close with Steven Hawkings who was the author of this one and he has developed some very interesting insights into the study of mathematics and the universe and the geometry of the universe and his name is Roger Penrose and obviously this is different from this but yet it doesn't block these two men working together and as this author Steven Hawkings did a great book called the history of time so this one did another great book called the shadows of the mind now one two three four it's our worldviews of course and there is another one and that I'm going to present it that the universe itself the whole functioning of the universe is much like the way in which the heart beats that is to say it's a pulsating that pulse a it's on and off it's on and off dipped it in that sense it's very much like the structural mathematical language on a north on a north on and off therefore it's on and there's the universe exists for a instant then it's off and then it's on and then it's off and on and off and on and this is captured ideally the model for this is the film strip if you wanted to study motion and someone had a camera that could take so many frames per second and you said I want to study motion so I'm looking at each one of these to see if I can study motion and of course would you discover each frame is static and therefore even if you speed up the film a thousand or a million times a second you still wouldn't be able to see any motion in any frame conclusion it's between the frames that the action takes place that's the same thing as this view you see it's saying that the entire universe is on and off on phone and office in the instant the instantaneous moment is really it just a flash and then it's off then another flash there's no continuity there's no continuity they're just a series of flashes that's all it is now within this on and off universe which by the way this view has its origin though it's this is the one we're going to talk about with Alan Watts this really has its origin philosophically and Plato's Parmenides the third hypothesis the third hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides now on a North opposites opposites opposites opposites the very nature of opposites is integral therefore to this view of the nature of the universe and there's a whole series of opposites and that is this on and off we stand here we stand trying to grasp what it is we are in our universe and therein lies our difficulty because everything in the universe in our experience it's clearly other than ourselves clearly other that's not me I am not hurt by that I am over here it is over here and so is everything therefore were always quiet in this other pair of opposites called self and other again opposites the self has represented often by the eye in this immensity of the universe seeks in some way to reach some kind of meaning but it's always insignificant in comparison with the vastness of the other nests of the physical and the entire universe therefore it's necessarily a sense of foreignness fine alienated because whatever identify as being the eye seems to be totally different than anything I experience because I experience everything is other than I and furthermore the eye only seems to exist for us period of time and therefore with our death there appears to be there for a return to non being and therefore our existence only has being being in the sense of a vitality and a life that's what it has being life vitality identity that's all in the eye but in this other than me no why likely not much vitality and if even if I'm pointing to an elephant having more vitality perhaps than I it's still totally different than me I can't identify with it there's nothing I can identify in the universe except other eyes that seem just as foreign as alienated from me as I am from them this is the universe that Alan Watts presents with in which he is then going to explore this question of the taboo against knowing the self it's just the way he starts he contrasts it he contrasts it here with this theological universe and he says if you want to therefore talk about the origin of this kind of pulsating universe it doesn't work here are the time-honored terms God Father creator etc all the traditional values is if you can't take these terms these metaphors and move them in here anymore than he warns us can you take it and introduce them into this world of the advizr metaphors are not exchangeable each worldview has its own inherent models metaphors and they're not transferable now Allen is very interested in science therefore he for the most part until late in his life by the way accepted this model Hawking's model much later he got interested in this possibility of an independent this view essentially saying there may be an independent intelligence in the universe and that was a great advance over his earlier thinking and we had fun one night in his houseboat and we were talking about it and he said Pierre he said done do you know where there's some evidence to suggest that there really is a place out there in the heavens and the universe that in fact is the is the origin of intelligence so we're playing this way one night and I said well I don't know about that Allen I said but I do think I have an idea that whoever is going to discover it I think I know his middle name what sign what sign I said it's likely to be Parmenides so we had fun that night but what the important point of it is though you see he was moving from this to this and now he always has a loyalty even though he talks about science he also has a loyalty to Chinese thought and when he talks about Chinese thought he slips into a Buddhism because his Chinese thought moves into Taoism and the Taoism that he's interested in most often picks up terms like being a non being and that's where he moves now what does he do therefore to bring this together to try to answer this question about the taboo against knowing the self well the self that he introduces he introduces in this very fine book all the taboo against knowing yourself and I'd like to read you a couple of lines out of it because it's so interesting the way he expresses it I'm on the book subtitle the taboo against knowing who you are we need a slightly shift in viewpoint he says and nothing is more obvious this is his jumping-off point there's nothing more obvious than the interdependence of opposites the interdependence of opposites now wait a minute on and off we're opposites self and other were opposites being and non-being were opposites you say wait a minute there's an interdependence between these ah they're correlated they're parallel they're kurodo's they're correlated they're not opposites opposing one another as if they are forces divided against one another and at war with one another no no no no so what does he do with it is it possible that my self my existence my existence the self so contains being and nothing that death is merely the off interval in an in an on and off pulsation which must be eternal because every alternative to this pulsation would in due course imply its presence is it conceivable then that I am basically an eternal existence momentarily and perhaps needlessly terrified by one half of itself because it has identified all of itself with the other half have I identified myself with just one half of this on self I being you say no that's the problem I have identified one half of terms which are interdependent if I'm going to change my view he said you know what he said I'd have to revert to the myth of the ego as an isolated independent observer from whom the rest of the world is absolutely other and nothing but neither neurology nor biology nor sociology can subscribe to this his allegiance to modern science which he always does okay now watch the way he pulls it together just a couple of sentences if on the other hand self and other subject and object organism and environment are the poles of a single process then that is my true existence that together that is my true existence all of it because they are not opposed to one another there's an interdependence between them what am i I am that which includes them both and he capitalizes the word that self another subject and object poles of a single process that that is my true existence then he quotes the upon ASEAN's that is the self that is the real that art thou but I cannot think or say anything about that or as I like or as I shall now call it now he moves from the word that to it it's not that it's then it capital I it's in it unless I resort to the convention of using dualistic language and metaphors and analogies as he says what lies beyond opposites must be discussed in terms of opposites and that means using the language of analogy metaphor and myth okay two more sentences and I'll take a pause the difficulty is not only that language is dualistic insofar as words or labels for mutually exclusive classes the problem is that it is so much more myself than I thought I was so central and so basic to my existence that I cannot make it an object there is no way to stand outside it and in fact no need to do so for as long as I am trying to grasp it I implying that it is not really myself this is why those who really know that they are it invariably say they don't understand it okay for for it understands understanding for it understands understanding that's the it because he just went through a process where he discovers and shares with us what he calls the self he brings us to understand what it is takes us through a process of understanding is you know what that that's it it understands and this is the understanding that it understands and the it is that that's it that's what he does so how does the end the book he ends up the book in a great way I don't know anyone who can do this as well as he does there's a totally amazing guy that's his book where the Joyce Brownton little poem this is it and I am it and you are it and so is that and he is it and she is it and it is it and that's that this book so that's that so he owns it that way right so you know he's quite a you know obviously as everybody knows he's so creative he can take an idea and he plays with him he turns it around and he uses all these different traditions as if they were particular paint colors and he then dabs around and does his little mosaic and he presented to it and so that's what I think today don't worry about it he'll change it tomorrow right a part of it but he'll keep a certain certain part of it will maintain so this was quite as I remember this was in the sixties that he did this and let me just make sure sixty five I think sixty six don't miss is 66 and as I say later he shifted in their seventy's just before he died and was now dealing with that real problem which is the problem that Roger Penrose brings into thinking that hey you know there's something curious there was some kind of vital intelligibility and he started focusing on that and that's where he was going I'd like to do some questions I should have should not have known op alized the whole thing I just kept on going yeah please yeah would you agree this is the reasoning the way it proceeds that if our entire universe were to end and all of the galaxies would be to finally end but it there then was another creation start all over again or if our particular galaxy collapses and the other galaxies galaxy starts it may be that some kind of intelligent being sometime in some place well too that see the question is is it likely they would discover or invent mathematics now watch would you agree if anybody somewhere comes up with a straight line they might then say you know if we hold this line and then rotate the end of it point B you know Mike we could have a circle and in the same way if we held this point stationary and rotated this and you know it's likely it would intersect on another point and if I draw a straight line from here to here and here to here you know I wonder whether that would show that the triangle I just drew is an equilateral triangle the goal you need is a straight line and just a simple mechanics of rotating in other words is it likely that mathematics would be rediscovered if it's rediscovered not invented then it exists that is if you have any kind of being whatever it is with sufficient intelligence it will in some way discover a world of mathematics is that a possible way of talking I'm not trying to convince you but is that a possible way of talking about this okay so all mathematics according to a book that that was very famous at the turn of the century written by Whitehead and Russell called the principia mathematica they studied mathematics and they came together Whitehead and Russell and they said I think I can take all the mathematics the whole thing and reduce it down to symbolic logic and so they did this massive work all the principia mathematica and they reduced all mathematics to a simple formula and they call this a molecular proposition fundamental so you can take anything about the - reduce it to this fundamental molecular proposition which says a is related to B in a series of ways as C is related to D in a series of ways that is to say any relate any two things can be related therefore that presupposes if there are things in the universe then these things can be related in such a way that you can talk about their sameness of differences Cantor well if you can talk about any two things in the universe you can talk about only two things I mean they're only two things in the universe they're either things or relations well therefore you can also talk about things and relations so let's talk this is a relation let's talk about another relation and call that C and D would you agree we can also compare relations as we can compare things oh then I can compare this with that can I not well when I do that I'm saying a is to B as C is to do that's an analogy therefore the fundamental nuclear proposition that Whitehead and Russel is is can be understood in this way to be nothing other the fundamental the fundamental analogy that governs all analogical thinking oh well then wait a minute if you take the first and the third term and any analogy right then that's how you generate similes a is to be is see us today I can say okay a is like see Oh God it's to his universe as an artist is to his is to his project Oh see a is to B as C is to D God is to the universe as the artist is to his project hey God is an artist see is to see I can create a whole bunch of similes count I write o poimen didn't we say moment ago that God had done what theological view is that God had an idea in his mind and I'm the base of that he generated the entire universe therefore the whole universe the whole universe is nothing other than like the model therefore the fundamental principle of the entire universe is likeness isn't it the idea of likeness that things could not be like one another there couldn't be a universe therefore the condition of likeness precedes the generation of the universe right hey that's curious in order to have likeness it looks like you have to be able to compare you have to be able to compare things on relations and then you can compare relations and relations now I can take this analogy and instead of putting ABCD ah let's substitute numbers 2 is 2 4 is 3 is 2 6 ok when you move from when you move from heterogeneous different hetero to homogenious terms that's mathematics see homogeneous means they're all belong in the same class so therefore mathematics is nothing other than an extension of a knowledge we're using homogeneous classes right but in analogies you're dealing with hetero these terms are different God is different than the universe as an artist is different from his project therefore their differences they belong and different classes not in the same class but you can then hey wait a minute how is it possible then I can do this that's a possible that we can talk this way doesn't that mean in some way that I'm drawing you in to reflect in a certain way about what must be present before creation okay God couldn't have created the universe unless there was an idea in his mind the idea in his mind must have been a model oh if there's a model then it can be a copy oh therefore these ideas must pre exist before creation as the very condition for creation oh by the way if there's any relationship between the model and the copy then you can say it's a good production did we know if God is the kind of a God that can only do good things then it's likely then whatever he does that is good will also be beautiful huh well therefore necessarily therefore there must be such a thing is the idea of the good and beautiful right good and beautiful model and copy now we're deriving a set of fundamental notions are we not that must exist prior to creation in order to talk about creation those are the conditions of platonic ideas these are the forms does the platonic forms presuppose a god yes these all are are together and imply one another they all interrelate they're not separate and distinct they apply one another and therefore it is a one Ness agree when all things interrelate in such a way that they can imply one another you have a perfect oneness a unity by the way wouldn't you agree by the same logic that if there is such a thing as a oneness that presupposes there must be a one prior to it therefore above the idea platonic forms must be the idea of the one and since all beings are attracted to what is good therefore as people are attracted to the good wherever they whatever they judge to be good they're attracted to it and they desire it and they desire to possess it as long as they think it's good therefore all things naturally are attracted to the good therefore the idea of one is presupposes one and that one must be the object of all desire therefore it's called the one war it and or the good okay so that's a oneness it presupposes therefore the existence of beauty and all of these formal properties existing independently over creation and therefore that you see when we were thinking together and I brought you into it a plate nough switch say at that moment you are participating in this realm to the degree that you were following it you're participating this world of ideas alright then I showed how that can be understood in terms of analogies and mathematics right we brought you into that therefore in a platonic world you are then participating to some degree and these realm called the forms these are called forums ideas another word for it is nine to choose my long-winded explanation but no okay okay can help you with any other way good I'd like to just recollect something for those of you who probably know Alan Watts or heard about him and relate to him that evening where we had this talk about Parmenides which was a lot of fun he ended it by toasting and several drinks in honor of all of those people who had such high and lovely and beautiful conceptions and he chanted a Gregorian chant thank you very much I appreciate it thank you for letting me share it with you it was a lot of fun any other questions about good you

Channel: PostNothingness

Views: 1,934

Rating: 4.891892 out of 5

Keywords: Philosophy

Id: IuxlH0DvPxo

Length: 42min 34sec (2554 seconds)

Published: Fri Feb 06 2015