- Posts: 2014
Problems in Watts
At one extreme, then, we have the sacred individual—the unique personal ego, separate from both nature and God—defined as such by a society which, almost in the same breath, commands him to be free and commands him to conform. At the other extreme is the coolie, the cog in the industrial-collectivist machine, or the mere "hand" (as the factory worker is often called). If one believes that the personal ego is a natural endowment of all men, as distinct from a social convention, then the lot of the coolie is bleak indeed—for one sees him as a repressed and frustrated person, though his own society may never have defined him as such.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Watts lived in an era with different social norms but this doesn't mean we should not be able to critique these ideas from our modern perspective.
- Jedi believe in the inherent worth and sanctity of all people regardless of ethnicity and national origin.
- There are also some parts of the text that people found very helpful and important.
- Many people do not engage in critical reading practices when completing the IP, and therefore a section that does not reflect Jedi values may be problematic.
Suggestions:
1) Put a disclaimer in the lesson to clarify the temple's position on racism.
2) Select only certain parts of the book for the lesson, and link to the rest if people want to read it.
3) Find a more recent author who deals with the same material from a modern perspective.
4) Include a lesson on critical reading early in the IP.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Now far be it from me to defend Watts on much of anything, but specifically what about his criticism of western short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness, or proneness for self-centering and cultural biases is it that is being objected to?
Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Vincent Causse
-
- Offline
- Banned
-
Inactive
- Posts: 262
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Wescli Wardest
-
- Offline
- Knight
-
Registered
- Unity in all Things
- Posts: 6455
By thoughts I mean, specifically, chatter in the skull—perpetual and compulsive repetition of words, of reckoning, and of calculating.
I’m not saying that thinking is bad; like everything else, it’s useful in moderation, a good servant but a bad master.
And all so-called civilized peoples have increasingly become crazy and self-destructive because through excessive thinking they have lost touch with reality. That’s to say we confuse signs, words, numbers, symbols, and ideas with the real world.” —Alan Watts
There are harsh realities that have to be faced and accepted for life to prosper. One being that suffering is a natural part of existence. Another being that we are not all equal. Some may be good at sports. Some may be good at math. Some may be good at compassion and some may be good at enduring and on and on. But we are not equal. We all have worth. We all have opportunity. None of us knows what is best for others. None of us knows what is best a culture, society or any other kind of group because each of us are individuals.
We, the human race, cannot be over populated. We can reach appoint where a single planet can no longer support the numbers of people on it. But all that means is that we will then be required to expand our occupied territories. IE, find other planets or celestial bodies to live on. Necessity has been a great motivator all throughout history. And given the opportunity, when need arises, I have faith that we will explore alternative resources.
Nature assaults us with natural disasters and diseases because that is what nature does. We learn how to overcome such obstacles because that is what we do. And learning how to tackle such issues gives us the tools and keys on how to expand beyond where we are now. As we expand as a species to go forth into the universe we will have to have had theses hard experiences to learn from so that we are successful in future endeavors.
Not being able to accept that life has hardships, that there are winners and losers, we will not be prepared for future events. Watts sees this and relays it to his audience in several different ways. But it is not what many want to hear so it is rejected as flawed or incorrect and we try to find ways to rationalize our own theories and substitute those as more favorable.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Vincent Causse
-
- Offline
- Banned
-
Inactive
- Posts: 262
Well this is what is the human ego, we re fed with ideas that we can destroy it all and still survive, it is not realistic, we depends and we in tight connection with the universe. It is a form of blindness to think that way, all living creatures of earth could easily live with out us but we cannot with out them. Star wars or what ever other movies that have imagined a planet entirely habited by a form of human like form , as one planet city is totally impossible. The science behind it can not back it up beside our imagination. Alan Watt has talked so much about ego it is because of such a form of thinking. The force is about balance, so one supreme species doesnt fit in that equilibrium. Why would human have the right to be superior ? The hard lesson that we will learn is to come, we cannot ignore the Force and continu on living the way we do. The Force is all there is, all we can see , the force is all living beings and it does not care for humans more than it cares of other creatures. To believe that we can control it is really being blinded by the dark side, a thing of our own creation. Alan Watts wasnt introduced to the IP for no special reasons. Uncontrolled EGO give humans the belief to be able to control the force and to be the superior species. We re instead only few grain of sand on the face of the earth and we havent done anything lately to be remembered for in a good way.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Wescli Wardest
-
- Offline
- Knight
-
Registered
- Unity in all Things
- Posts: 6455
I never said “destroy it all.”
When a population reaches the point where the environment can no longer support it either we go to war to find new lands or we go explore to settle new lands. Expansion is how a species has the best chance of long term survival. Once we feel the strain of our population taxing the planet to strain we will be forced to move on.
The planet will then recover quickly without such a large burden on it.
Nature has changed multiple times throughout the history of the planet. Even long before we had any influence on it. And Nature has survived it all. It is only our arrogance that makes us believe we can control something as vast and powerful as nature. All we can do is adapt. And that is one of our species greatest strengths. Adaptation.
I never said that humans were superior. In fact, I can most often be found to compare us to a virus. And just as a virus moves from one host to another, so shall we. It is in our very nature to move forward and explore. And like I said before, our advantage, the ability to adapt, has given us an edge over almost every other species. These two things will make it possible for us to go to other places and thrive.
Unlike many others animals in nature we have found ways to survive when the other animals would be wiped out or have their population seriously reduced. This is a benefit for us. Imagine if we didn’t’ have that ability. Do you think you would still be here?
Your last sentence is very presumptuous. I feel like you may be projection your own shortcomings in other people. I know that you do not know me nor the majority of other people in the world. So I forgive you.
When I suggest that an expansion in to the universe is our most likely solution it was completely rejected. Ruin the planet… as if anything we have done cannot be overcome by nature if given the chance. You recognize that people have been on the earth for over two-hundred-thousand years. And it is primarily in the last couple hundred that the most “damage” has been done. That is one one-thousandth the time we have been here. I bet if you give people some time you will be pleasantly surprised. Like I said before, it takes time to change things. People usually learn quickest when they feel pain. The pain of something unpleasant tends to drive change.
There is a cartoon I find amusing and I would like to share it with you.
Attachment OPBTkhA.jpeg not found
Nature will continue with or without us. It's not the planet we're ruining. It's the environment that is good for us we are changing. Nature will be fine rather we are here or not. So we will need to adapt. And I still hold firm in the belief that expansion to other celestial bodies will be how our species continues. Look at things outside our planet... the sun will not last forever. If we do not go to other planets than eventually we will be wiped out by the one thing that sustains us on this planet... the Sun.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Vincent Causse
-
- Offline
- Banned
-
Inactive
- Posts: 262
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Wescli Wardest
-
- Offline
- Knight
-
Registered
- Unity in all Things
- Posts: 6455
I agree that the “everything is disposable” attitude society as a whole seems to have taken on is not good for long term sustainability.
It has been proven throughout history that nature will sort itself out. May not be an ecosystem that will support human life; but, some of the eras of the past were not suitable for humans either. It’s just part of the life cycle of the planet itself. Time changes everything.
Populating a territory until the numbers are no longer sustainable is a foolish practice. But unlike other species, rather than slowly dying out because of it we have developed, and continue to develop, skills and tools that will allow us to move on to other areas.
“to make sure earth will be as pristine as possible for futur human species as it happened in the past” is an incorrect assumption. The earth was not always suitable for human life. And to deny the planet its ability to change as it sees fit is selfish on our part. Nature will do as she pleases. It is for us to adapt and/or move on if we want to survive as a species.
And speaking of taking down other animals. We, as a species, have taken down far, far fewer numbers and species of animals and life than nature herself has. There have been over seven discovered mass extinction events in the planets history that we have discovered so far. When nature decides it’s time for a change there is nothing we can do to stop it. And it is sheer human arrogance to think we can or even should.
People constantly go on about balance and nature but they seem to understand neither very well. Not specifically referring to you Vincent, but people view these topics through very small, narrow skewed windows and only seem to acknowledge the things that support their preconceived notions. It is a much vaster and ever changing subject with no point of equilibrium. Nature in itself is balance. And balance is the constant struggle between opposing forces. Not a state of equilibrium, always in motion and waging the ongoing struggle.
And that is also one of the points that Watts eludes to that people seem to have real issue with.
I can see there are things we will disagree on. That’s cool with me.
![;) ;)](/media/kunena/emoticons/11.png)
But let’s return the thread to the original topic. I feel we high-jacked it.
![:P :P](/media/kunena/emoticons/15.png)
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- OB1Shinobi
-
- Offline
- Banned
-
Inactive
- Posts: 4394
“....And all so-called civilized peoples have increasingly become crazy and self-destructive because through excessive thinking they have lost touch with reality. That’s to say we confuse signs, words, numbers, symbols, and ideas with the real world.” —Alan Watts
While I agree that we are pretty crazy and self destructive, I cant help but to ask "as opposed to whom?" Desert roaming goat herders who expanded their lands by conquest and cut the throats of bulls and lambs over a piece of stone in dedication to their God - who took slaves and killed each other with rocks over accusations of infidelity? (No offense meant to modern Jews, Christians, or Muslims).
Jungle dwelling peoples who, to nourish Quetzalcóatl would cut the still beating hearts out of men and women their warriors captured while raiding the weaker societies along their borders and who thought that rocks and gems bestowed magical powers upon them? (No offense intended toward the descendants of indigenous people or those who practice some form of Shamanism)
The oh-so-wisened Brahmins who believed that enlightenment was the result of emaciation and who reign/ed over a caste system wherein a whole 4th of their people were believed to deserve whatever wretched treatment was forced upon them (exploitation, virtual enslavement, violence, murder, sexual assault) by the belief that Dharma deliberately and righteously birthed them into human existence as an "Untouchable"? (No offense intended to modern Hindus)
Im not denying that modern people hold and live by some pretty inane beliefs, im just rejecting the insinuation here that ancient people didnt. There are a great many things we can fault ourselves for, I dont think that being more looney OVERALL than our ancestors is one of them.
‐
We, the human race, cannot be over populated. We can reach appoint where a single planet can no longer support the numbers of people on it. But all that means is that we will then be required to expand our occupied territories. IE, find other planets or celestial bodies to live on. Necessity has been a great motivator all throughout history. And given the opportunity, when need arises, I have faith that we will explore alternative resources.
Friend, respectfully: I agree with most of what youve said (i often do) but this single part, to my way of reading it, seemed to imply that its ok to practice knife throwing, archery and melee weapons practice on the walls, build a fire pit directly on the the living room floor, leave the rotting leftovers of our meals laying around and use all the corners in the all rooms as toilets - but dont worry, just because the house will eventually become unlivable to us doesnt mean it wont be livable to something and besides, necessity is a great motivator and once we're homeless the need for a new home will automatically give us the ingenuity to acquire one (even if its in space). One which I assume we would also abuse until it becomes unlivable (but only for us!). Maybe this is true (though on a global scale I doubt the impoverished masses will be a part of this great colonization) but still, wouldnt it be better to just start cleaning up the house (planet) we've already got?
People are complicated.
Please Log in to join the conversation.