Comment author: simplicio 23 March 2010 05:26:11PM 1 point [-]

I think I get the distinction. I suspect Watts would say something like "all of these things - materialism, spiritualism, etc. are just concepts. Reality is reality." Which sounds nice until you realize he means subjectively experienced reality. Elevating the latter to some sort of superior status is a big mistake imo, although the distinction between reality and our conceptions of it is well founded.

Comment author: ktismael 23 March 2010 06:00:07PM 1 point [-]

Well, I hesitate to challenge your reading of Watts, as you've definitely retained more than I have, but I would say that subjectively experienced reality isn't the goal of understanding, rather an attempt to bring once perception closer to actual reality. So I suspect that the doctrine of acceptance would say that if your eyes and ears contradict what appears to be actually happening, then you should let your eyes and ears go.

But of course there is always perception bias, and I'm sure the subject is well covered on LW elsewhere. And, in buddhism all of this is weighted down with a lot of mysticism and even with that this is a highly idealized version anyway. For FSM's sake, the majority of buddhists are sending their prayers up to heaven with incense. So perhaps I should just let it go, eh? :) Anyway, thanks for your comments, it may be helping me set some of my thoughts on all this.

Comment author: simplicio 23 March 2010 03:53:16PM *  3 points [-]

I am rather fond of Watts, having read many of his books & listened to his lectures as a youngster. He seems to vacillate between accepting the scientific worldview and inserting metaphysical claims about consciousness as a fundamental phenomenon (as well as other weird claims). For instance, you can find in "The Book on the Taboo..." a wonderful passage about life as "tubes" with an input and an output, playing a huge game of one-upmanship; "this all seems wonderfully pointless," he says, "but after a while it seems more wonderful than pointless."

But in the same book he basically dismisses scientists as trying so hard to be rigorous that they make life not worth living. And you can find him ranting about how Euclid must have been kind of stupid because he started with straight lines (as opposed to organic shapes).

The guy frustrates the hell out of me, because with a couple years of undergrad science under his belt he could've been a correct philosopher as well as an original one.

Comment author: ktismael 23 March 2010 05:09:40PM 1 point [-]

Yeah, I suppose his understanding is not consistent, like most of us he has (had) blindspots in which emotion takes over. I, too, found him interesting and frustrating as a writer.

Mostly, I wanted to bring up the distinction between nihilism and what I guess I'll refer to as the buddhist doctrine of "acceptance". I'm not sure how that distinction is to be drawn, since they look quite similar.

Perhaps I could compare it to the difference between agnosticism (or skepticism) and "hard" atheism. The first, here from Dawkins says "There's probably no god, so quit worrying and enjoy your life." The second, a la Penn Jillette says "There is no God". Nihilism seems to make a claim to knowledge closer to the first, as "Nothing matters". Acceptance seems closer to the first, "It probably doesn't matter whether or not it matters." But I could be full of crap with this whole line of argument.

Anyway, your paraphrase here makes it pretty clear that at least part of the time he suffered from the "mechanism = despair" fallacy, so I suppose it doesn't especially matter here.

Comment author: ktismael 23 March 2010 02:55:18PM 2 points [-]

It has been a while since I've read Watts, but I suspect you're misreading his attitude here. In essence the buddhist (particularly the Zen Buddhist) attitude toward reality is very similar to the materialist view which you endorse. That is, that reality exists, and our opinions about it should be recognized as illusory. This can be confused for nihilism or despair, but really is distinct. Take the universe as it is, and experience it directly, without allowing your expectations of how it should be to affect that experience.

Perhaps he doesn't share this view (though given his background it's hard to believe he wouldn't) although without further context it is difficult to judge from just that quote.

Certainly you can argue about reincarnation and divinity and other aspects of Watts philosophy that you find irrational or dogmatic. But on this individual case you bring up, I suspect he shares your view, and I think you (OP) are projecting these views based on assuming that someone recognizing human life is natural in the same way as vegetable life must consider that a bad thing. But to quote the inscrutable philosophy behind this, that is "perfect in its suchness".

Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 21 March 2010 06:47:04PM 7 points [-]

It's said that "ignorance is bliss", but that doesn't mean knowledge is misery!

I recall studies showing that major positive/negative events in people's lives don't really change their overall happiness much in the long run. Likewise, I suspect that seeing things in terms of grim, bitter truths that must be stoically endured has very little to do with what those truths are.

Comment author: ktismael 23 March 2010 02:35:00PM 4 points [-]

I recall reading (One of Tyler Cowen's books, I think) that happiness is highly correlated with capacity for self-deception. In this case, positive / negative events would have little impact, but not necessarily because people accepted them, but more because the human brain is a highly efficient self-deception machine.

Similarly, a tendency toward depression correlated with an ability to make more realistic predictions about one's life. So I think it may in fact be a particular aspect of human psychology that encourages self-deception and responds negatively to reality.

None of this is to say that these effects can't be reduced or eliminated through various mental techniques, but I don't think it's sufficient to just assert it as cultural.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit