Alan Watts: This Is IT: Become What You Are

[DigitalBuddha]

Alan Watts: This Is IT: Become What You Are



Alan Watts put forward a worldview, drawing on Hinduism, Chinese philosophy, pantheism, and modern science, in which he maintains that the whole universe consists of a cosmic self playing hide-and-seek (Lila), hiding from itself (Maya) by becoming all the living and non-living things in the universe, forgetting what it really is; the upshot being that we are all IT in disguise. In this worldview, Watts asserts that our conception of ourselves as an "ego in a bag of skin" is a myth; the entities we call the separate "things" are merely processes of the whole. You're IT.

Some kind of Eastern thing - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3hVc2hWYxg



Alan Watts - Seeing Through the Game (Carl Jung Tribute) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69xtLLtV-xI

[Zen Dog]

Alan Watts: This Is IT: Become What You Are



Alan Watts put forward a worldview, drawing on Hinduism, Chinese philosophy, pantheism, and modern science, in which he maintains that the whole universe consists of a cosmic self playing hide-and-seek (Lila), hiding from itself (Maya) by becoming all the living and non-living things in the universe, forgetting what it really is; the upshot being that we are all IT in disguise. In this worldview, Watts asserts that our conception of ourselves as an "ego in a bag of skin" is a myth; the entities we call the separate "things" are merely processes of the whole. You're IT.

Some kind of Eastern thing - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3hVc2hWYxg

I think we are fractals of the IS.

[BikerDude]

A great vid.
I dig the "one with all things" vibe. I see it as an outlook that opens doors of perception.
A window into the powers of perception. The "being in it's self".
But on a side note IMHO when taken to extremes (Deepak Choppra for instance) it gets a bit silly.
Deepak would have it that for instance there is no actual Moon absent the perception of it.
That gets a bit silly.
At around 12:30 of this vid for instance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi2IC6e5DUY

Here's a vid about the "double slit experiment" mentioned in relation to "Nonlocality"
Deepak tries to use this concept in some mumbo jumbo no moon without the perception. Pure nonsense.
Unfortunately this sort of "mix and match" science is pretty common in the area of new age philosophy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Not the case with the original vid.

Just opening up discussion really.

[A Stoned Buddha]

I dig Watt's style. He's got that whole English, Zen, California Dude thing going on. I'm glad he left behind such a large catalog of books and lectures to glean from. I think what he taught me most of all is just how inefficient and inadequate language is for expressing the bigger ideas. Often times, I find myself wishing to express an insight or thought that I've arrived at with other people, only to find that the idea weakens, seems paltry and egocentric when it is squeezed into language. In my experience, once one burns away all the symbolism, dogma and the "yourself as the center of the story" from reality, you find there is nothing you can say to succinctly express that reality. Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu; all failed at accurate transmission. (Though IMO, some seem closer to me than others.)  At best, all you have to work with are parables, metaphors, koans and riddles. Hence, the multitude of different religions and ideas of what all those mean.

I've read a few of his books and listened to dozens of snippets of his lectures, and I gotta say, I think anyone interested should do both. The ideas in his books are a little easier to comprehend because you can read it slow and reread pages if you need to, which I often do in some sections because he does get scholarly. But, I feel hearing him give a lecture really drives the point home in a way that paper words could never match. His tone, humor and wit are just as fresh today as ever. Every time I listen to him, I feel he is letting me in on some big joke I would have overlooked otherwise. Which of course, he is. 

[Hominid]

The double slit animation is a good presentation. And you're right: making non-locality (or non-local coherence) the basis to explain conciousness/spiritual/mystic experiences is a stretch, but it *is* the best explanation I have heard of so far. Because it is fact, that repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention have no other explanation than non-local coherence.  Maybe it's something else, but these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously. Granted, there's a lot of "wu wu" factor in how people have interpreted these findings, but no matter the languaging used, it suits me to have science explain other-wise "religious" experiences. It debunks the god part, and reduces ALL experience to explainable physical phenomena.

[forumdude]

I fucking love that so many of the Dudes on this forum are equally at ease with lowball humor as they are with deep questions about subatomic physics and arcane philosophy. This may be the only place on the 'Net in which one can discuss genitalia and a skeptical approach to metaphysics in nearly the same breath.

Vagina.

[Hominid]

No no... it's:

VAGINA!!!!!!!!

[BikerDude]

The double slit animation is a good presentation. And you're right: making non-locality (or non-local coherence) the basis to explain conciousness/spiritual/mystic experiences is a stretch, but it *is* the best explanation I have heard of so far. Because it is fact, that repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention have no other explanation than non-local coherence.  Maybe it's something else, but these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously. Granted, there's a lot of "wu wu" factor in how people have interpreted these findings, but no matter the languaging used, it suits me to have science explain other-wise "religious" experiences. It debunks the god part, and reduces ALL experience to explainable physical phenomena.

Well the point is that nothing in what is actually called Non Locality, that is to say the concept that is observable and repeatable by experiment and named by an actual people (Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen) who had intentions for these ideas actually has anything whatsoever to do with any of that.
I find that Deepak and a lot of "new agey" types set the bar incredibly low and feel perfectly fine just harvesting any actual scientific jargen that sounds like it could be an explaination for something in an episode of star trek and simply state it with zero empirical evidence or much of anything. The reality is that there is an actual scientific concept of non locality and it has nothing to do with consciousness. It makes no pretext whatsoever of anything like that and none of the scientists who found it ever in any way even hinted that it had any application whatsoever to do with consciousness.

I'd like to know about "repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention".
I admit that I'm skeptical out of the gate on any of that.
I'm afraid that I don't believe that "these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously."

[Hominid]

The double slit animation is a good presentation. And you're right: making non-locality (or non-local coherence) the basis to explain conciousness/spiritual/mystic experiences is a stretch, but it *is* the best explanation I have heard of so far. Because it is fact, that repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention have no other explanation than non-local coherence.  Maybe it's something else, but these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously. Granted, there's a lot of "wu wu" factor in how people have interpreted these findings, but no matter the languaging used, it suits me to have science explain other-wise "religious" experiences. It debunks the god part, and reduces ALL experience to explainable physical phenomena.

Well the point is that nothing in what is actually called Non Locality, that is to say the concept that is observable and repeatable by experiment and named by an actual people (Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen) who had intentions for these ideas actually has anything whatsoever to do with any of that.
I find that Deepak and a lot of "new agey" types set the bar incredibly low and feel perfectly fine just harvesting any actual scientific jargen that sounds like it could be an explaination for something in an episode of star trek and simply state it with zero empirical evidence or much of anything. The reality is that there is an actual scientific concept of non locality and it has nothing to do with consciousness. It makes no pretext whatsoever of anything like that and none of the scientists who found it ever in any way even hinted that it had any application whatsoever to do with consciousness.

I'd like to know about "repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention".
I admit that I'm skeptical out of the gate on any of that.
I'm afraid that I don't believe that "these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously."

It's apparently worth studying based on current evidence:
http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/DH_Intention.pdf

Studies mentioned, but not referenced (by a PH.D)
http://www.trans4mind.com/counterpoint/index-new-age/targ.shtml

The Energizer Bunny will never be the same:
http://www.trans4mind.com/counterpoint/index-new-age/targ.shtml

And, good ol' Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab

[A Stoned Buddha]

The double slit animation is a good presentation. And you're right: making non-locality (or non-local coherence) the basis to explain conciousness/spiritual/mystic experiences is a stretch, but it *is* the best explanation I have heard of so far. Because it is fact, that repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention have no other explanation than non-local coherence.  Maybe it's something else, but these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously. Granted, there's a lot of "wu wu" factor in how people have interpreted these findings, but no matter the languaging used, it suits me to have science explain other-wise "religious" experiences. It debunks the god part, and reduces ALL experience to explainable physical phenomena.

Well the point is that nothing in what is actually called Non Locality, that is to say the concept that is observable and repeatable by experiment and named by an actual people (Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen) who had intentions for these ideas actually has anything whatsoever to do with any of that.
I find that Deepak and a lot of "new agey" types set the bar incredibly low and feel perfectly fine just harvesting any actual scientific jargen that sounds like it could be an explaination for something in an episode of star trek and simply state it with zero empirical evidence or much of anything. The reality is that there is an actual scientific concept of non locality and it has nothing to do with consciousness. It makes no pretext whatsoever of anything like that and none of the scientists who found it ever in any way even hinted that it had any application whatsoever to do with consciousness.

I'd like to know about "repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention".
I admit that I'm skeptical out of the gate on any of that.
I'm afraid that I don't believe that "these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously."

Put me in your boat, man. This just sounds like a ringer getting tossed for a ringer, which proves nuttin'. I love the experiment though, some cool shit right there. To me, it just means we're made of the same stuff. That one group of atoms can influence the behavior of another group of atoms, more or less. Far fucking out man.

[Zen Dog]

I fucking love that so many of the Dudes on this forum are equally at ease with lowball humor as they are with deep questions about subatomic physics and arcane philosophy. This may be the only place on the 'Net in which one can discuss genitalia and a skeptical approach to metaphysics in nearly the same breath.

Vagina.

Talking of which.Can we take a straw poll on hairy preference.I prefer smooth.

[Zen Dog]

The double slit animation is a good presentation. And you're right: making non-locality (or non-local coherence) the basis to explain conciousness/spiritual/mystic experiences is a stretch, but it *is* the best explanation I have heard of so far. Because it is fact, that repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention have no other explanation than non-local coherence.  Maybe it's something else, but these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously. Granted, there's a lot of "wu wu" factor in how people have interpreted these findings, but no matter the languaging used, it suits me to have science explain other-wise "religious" experiences. It debunks the god part, and reduces ALL experience to explainable physical phenomena.

Well the point is that nothing in what is actually called Non Locality, that is to say the concept that is observable and repeatable by experiment and named by an actual people (Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen) who had intentions for these ideas actually has anything whatsoever to do with any of that.
I find that Deepak and a lot of "new agey" types set the bar incredibly low and feel perfectly fine just harvesting any actual scientific jargen that sounds like it could be an explaination for something in an episode of star trek and simply state it with zero empirical evidence or much of anything. The reality is that there is an actual scientific concept of non locality and it has nothing to do with consciousness. It makes no pretext whatsoever of anything like that and none of the scientists who found it ever in any way even hinted that it had any application whatsoever to do with consciousness.

I'd like to know about "repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention".
I admit that I'm skeptical out of the gate on any of that.
I'm afraid that I don't believe that "these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously."

Put me in your boat, man. This just sounds like a ringer getting tossed for a ringer, which proves nuttin'. I love the experiment though, some cool shit right there. To me, it just means we're made of the same stuff. That one group of atoms can influence the behavior of another group of atoms, more or less. Far fucking out man.

There is a theory that there is only one particle.It just happens to be everywhere at the same time. But if time is an illusion caused by apparent entropy and that motion is an illusion caused by the apparent passage of time I have only one question.Whose round is it?

[RighteousDude]

Whose round is it?

Everyones! There's only one round, but it's everywhere at the same time because there's only one time anyway. Or something like that. These big questions give me trouble. Hell, the small ones give me trouble, too.

[Hominid]

Whose round is it?

Everyones! There's only one round, but it's everywhere at the same time because there's only one time anyway. Or something like that. These big questions give me trouble. Hell, the small ones give me trouble, too.

"Too many strands for the ol' duder's head." I wonder if he meant string theory... or a toe. (Theory of everything).  One never knows...

[RighteousDude]

I wonder if he meant string theory... or a toe. (Theory of everything).  One never knows...

It's a GUT thing.