Alan Watts: This Is IT: Become What You Are

[A Stoned Buddha]

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.

I like'em au natural on her.  Shorn on me ;)

[DigitalBuddha]

Watt's Autobiography was a kick to read; totally dig the way he did business. "In My Own Way: An Autobiography"

Papers, just autobiography papers - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVyeIRQ_xVU

Notes:

    Alan Watts Autobiography -

   

While many in the 60's played the stock market and paid their mortgages, Alan Watts lived aboard a colorful houseboat, writing, speaking, and inspiring a generation to re-assess their values. For more than forty years, Alan Watts earned a reputation as a foremost interpreter of Eastern philosophies for the West. Beginning at age sixteen, when he wrote essay for the journal of the Buddhist Lodge in London, he developed an audience of millions who were enriched through his books, tape recordings, radio, television, and public lectures.

In all, Watts wrote more than twenty-five books and recorded hundreds of lectures and seminars, all building toward a personal philosophy that he shared in complete candor and joy with his readers and listeners throughout the world. His overall works have presented a model of individuality and self-expression that can be matched by few philosophers. His life and work reflects an astonishing adventure: he was an editor, Anglican priest, graduate dean, broadcaster, author, lecturer, and entertainer.

He had fascinations for archery, calligraphy, cooking, chanting, and dancing, and still was completely comfortable hiking alone in the wilderness. He held a Master's Degree in Theology from Sudbury-Western Theological Seminary and an Honorary DD from the University of Vermont in recognition of his work in the field of comparative religions. He held fellowships from Harvard University and the Bollingen Foundation, and was Episcopal Chaplain at Northwestern University during the Second World War.

He became professor and dean of the American Academy of Asian Studies in San Francisco, made the television series "Eastern Wisdom and Modern Life" for National Educational Television, and served as a visiting consultant for psychiatric institutions and hospitals, and for the United States Air Force. In the mid-sixties he traveled widely with his students in Japan, and visited Burma, Ceylon, and India.

[A Stoned Buddha]

I'm really surprised he isn't more popular. I mean, he is everywhere on the internet, but rarely do I meet someone in person who has heard of him. Maybe its just NE Tennessee? I guess I didn't hear of him till a couple of years ago, but still, dude was a for real Dude. I know he had quite a few struggles with alcohol and women, but who here honestly hasn't?

[DigitalBuddha]

I'm really surprised he isn't more popular. I mean, he is everywhere on the internet, but rarely do I meet someone in person who has heard of him. Maybe its just NE Tennessee? I guess I didn't hear of him till a couple of years ago, but still, dude was a for real Dude. I know he had quite a few struggles with alcohol and women, but who here honestly hasn't?

I try as hard as I can to struggle with alcohol and women.

Watts seems to be somewhat "underground." Radio stations KPFK in Los Angeles and KPFA in Berkley really promoted him.

[A Stoned Buddha]

I'm really surprised he isn't more popular. I mean, he is everywhere on the internet, but rarely do I meet someone in person who has heard of him. Maybe its just NE Tennessee? I guess I didn't hear of him till a couple of years ago, but still, dude was a for real Dude. I know he had quite a few struggles with alcohol and women, but who here honestly hasn't?

I try as hard as I can to struggle with alcohol and women.

Watts seems to be somewhat "underground." Radio stations KPFK in Los Angeles and KPFA in Berkley really promoted him.

I see what you did there! Very clever!  I'm just thinking that if a douche like Eckhart Tolle, or any other of these Watt-abees can get well known, I feel like Watts material could use some more promotion. Put his mug on a bottle of sake or something.

[DigitalBuddha]

I'm really surprised he isn't more popular. I mean, he is everywhere on the internet, but rarely do I meet someone in person who has heard of him. Maybe its just NE Tennessee? I guess I didn't hear of him till a couple of years ago, but still, dude was a for real Dude. I know he had quite a few struggles with alcohol and women, but who here honestly hasn't?

I try as hard as I can to struggle with alcohol and women.

Watts seems to be somewhat "underground." Radio stations KPFK in Los Angeles and KPFA in Berkley really promoted him.

I see what you did there! Very clever!  I'm just thinking that if a douche like Eckhart Tolle, or any other of these Watt-abees can get well known, I feel like Watts material could use some more promotion. Put his mug on a bottle of sake or something.

True, Watts doesn't get the credit and the exposure he deserves. Too bad, because his material; books and lectures, are far more down to earth and practical in understanding Eastern thinking and how it compares to Western thinking. Watts saw himself as a "bridge" between the East and West previously considered to be all but at odds with each other. Later in his life he was thrown into a position as another bridge; that of one between the 60's counter culture and more conservative square community having dropped acid a few times when it was legal.

[Zen Dog]

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...

I think here that we may be closer to the answer to the ultimate question.

[A Stoned Buddha]

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...

I think here that we may be closer to the answer to the ultimate question.

42. Now does anyone got the ultimate question? Or is this the ultimate question?

[DigitalBuddha]

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...

I think here that we may be closer to the answer to the ultimate question.

42. Now does anyone got the ultimate question? Or is this the ultimate question?

I'm wondering if the ultimate question can be found after a night of drinking Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters (which was invented by Zaphod Beeblebrox)?

All kidding aside; could it be that there are no ultimate answers, just deeper and deeper questions? Sort of like more and more quotes inside of more and more quotes, ad infinitum.

[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."

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

Sorry I don't find any of this convincing.
I'm confident that if there was any quantifiable evidence of telepathy it would likely be widely known.
It's not.

Quakwatch list "noetic bla bla.

Stephen Barrett, organizer of the nonprofit organization Quackwatch, whose website describes itself as a "Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions," lists the Institute of Noetic Sciences as one of the 729 organizations that he views "with considerable distrust."[19]

Founded by a former astronaut who "had an epiphany"?!

The institute was co-founded in 1973 by Edgar Mitchell, an astronaut who was part of the Apollo 14 mission, investor Paul N. Temple and some others.[6] During the three-day journey back to Earth aboard Apollo 14, Mitchell had an epiphany while looking down on the earth from space. "The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes ... The knowledge came to me directly," Mitchell said of that experience. Following his spaceflight, Mitchell and others founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences.[7] Willis Harman served as its president from 1975 until his death in 1997.[8][9][10]

I mean CMON!!!

The others I didn't look into very carefully but I see that the "Trans4mind" site has a lot of stuff about "Astrology". I stopped there.

As far as "conscious intention" (which seems to be a de-religousized synonym for prayer) I'll go with any of the numerous studies that have found no effect. For instance one featured by the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4681771.stm

[A Stoned Buddha]

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...

I think here that we may be closer to the answer to the ultimate question.

42. Now does anyone got the ultimate question? Or is this the ultimate question?

I'm wondering if the ultimate question can be found after a night of drinking Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters (which was invented by Zaphod Beeblebrox)?

All kidding aside; could it be that there are no ultimate answers, just deeper and deeper questions? Sort of like more and more quotes inside of more and more quotes, ad infinitum.

Yeah, that's what I think. Answers are boring and temporary anyway. Our scientific way of thinking always involves an isolation of an idea or thing, so we can establish a control and measure differences. To me, this seems like the worst way to approach philosophical questions. To separate any idea or thing from the whole, you negate the whole context and the off phase of that particular things existence, and therefore any answer you get will be incomplete answer at best. It's like taking a handful of water and trying to explain the ocean. The better and deeper our microscopes and telescopes can look, the deeper and fuzzier the universe will get. Who knows though, maybe one day a scientist will look into the most powerful microscope or telescope man could ever make, crank it all the way up, and see his own eye looking back at him.

[BikerDude]

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...

I think here that we may be closer to the answer to the ultimate question.

42. Now does anyone got the ultimate question? Or is this the ultimate question?

I'm wondering if the ultimate question can be found after a night of drinking Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters (which was invented by Zaphod Beeblebrox)?

All kidding aside; could it be that there are no ultimate answers, just deeper and deeper questions? Sort of like more and more quotes inside of more and more quotes, ad infinitum.

Yeah, that's what I think. Answers are boring and temporary anyway. Our scientific way of thinking always involves an isolation of an idea or thing, so we can establish a control and measure differences. To me, this seems like the worst way to approach philosophical questions. To separate any idea or thing from the whole, you negate the whole context and the off phase of that particular things existence, and therefore any answer you get will be incomplete answer at best. It's like taking a handful of water and trying to explain the ocean. The better and deeper our microscopes and telescopes can look, the deeper and fuzzier the universe will get. Who knows though, maybe one day a scientist will look into the most powerful microscope or telescope man could ever make, crank it all the way up, and see his own eye looking back at him.

I find this another way that we give a pass to anything that smacks of religion or philosophy etc..
While the Alan Watts vid does not, these disciplines make concrete claims that IMHO should not get a pass.
For instance the current state of "Eastern Philosophy" insists that there is a "NonLocal" conscience. That is a concrete claim and it is not unreasonable to require some evidence. I'm sorry but an epiphany or intuition just does not cut it.
The whole discipline is full of crackpot nonsense. I have seen the videos and read the papers and it's really amazing how transparent the intentions are. Typically near the beginning there is a wildly all encompassing claim offered with absolutely zero evidence. It is usually "semi poetic" (ocean of existance) and then backed by extemely vague usage of actual scientific concepts in ways that have nothing to do with the actual science.
Take for instance.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs0HCgMTDEg
Bold all encompassing claim after claim just stated like fact and bound together with mumbo jumbo woo woo.
"Psytoskelital Consciousness"? Gimme a Break!
This is so clearly just pulled out the ass that it is amazing.
It's the eastern version of Intelligent Design. Create a dialog that begins with the clear intention of proping up some woo woo religious concepts and use a bunch of pseudo science in support.


 

[A Stoned Buddha]

I give no free passes, but I also realize I'm growing and prone to making mistakes, as is everyone else out there. I do strongly dislike when people use half-truths of science to support their opinions as facts. What better way to make yourself feel more confident of your ideas than to convince someone else they're true? I mean, damn, it's been proven many times that "prayer" or whatever they're calling it does absolutely nothing to other people. Yet people are still wishing it to be true. I guess the best we can do is say our piece and understand that all of this is a part of our human story.

[BikerDude]

I give no free passes, but I also realize I'm growing and prone to making mistakes, as is everyone else out there. I do strongly dislike when people use half-truths of science to support their opinions as facts. What better way to make yourself feel more confident of your ideas than to convince someone else they're true? I mean, damn, it's been proven many times that "prayer" or whatever they're calling it does absolutely nothing to other people. Yet people are still wishing it to be true. I guess the best we can do is say our piece and understand that all of this is a part of our human story.

Yes everyone does make mistakes. That's the point. That's why we use discipline.
Peer review. That's why it's not enough to just make a claim. That's why we put our trust in institutions that have expertise rather than just cherry picking a bunch of mumbo jumbo from videos on Youtube.
When I see a groundswell from Princeton and Harvard that says they've found evidence of the efficacy of prayer or quantifiable evidence of telepathy I will listen. If there was something to this it would be studied.
There is no inherent prejudice against this sort of thing on the part of science except that it has been found to be nonsense. If not scientists would flock to it. That's the nature of science. And for that matter philosophy. (love of knowledge)
The move afoot to criticize science when it doesn't support the ridiculous superstitions and mumbo jumbo really pisses me off. It's not a plot on the part of universities together with the NY times that is keeping "the truth" from coming out. And I don't buy that it's a limitation of science.
IMO People need to grow up.

Peace.

[Hominid]

When I see a groundswell from Princeton and Harvard that says they've found evidence of the efficacy of prayer or quantifiable evidence of telepathy I will listen. If there was something to this it would be studied.

What's wrong with the studies that have already found that there's something to telepathy? The famous CIA and Russian research in the 60's found some interesting things that were worth looking into. How do you know if these Ivy League schools aren't going to  seriously research this at some point? Just because it's not on your timetable and to your liking, doesn't mean it is to be wholly dismissed.