It has been almost one year since I finished listening to my first tape of Alan Watts "You're It!"
I liked this one a little less, perhaps because I had already gained some familiarity with the philosophy and spirituality of Alan Watts through my previous exposure.
It was a rigged game, because I judge books quite heavily on the number and quality of good ideas that they inspire, and this one scored high on both counts, but the element of surprise that I had enjoyed listening to Alan Watts for the first time was gone.
Less sparkle, less magic in the words. Perhaps it has nothing to do with me being familiar with Alan Watts from before. Maybe this tape is just a tad worse than "You're It!".
Alan Watts makes a compelling case for a view of the universe as a web made up of 'wiggles'.
He expresses a distaste for the prevailing interpretation of the world in terms of Newtonian mechanics. Disconnected bodies exerting forces on one another. Quantifiable in their size and shape and movement by means of measurement.
He does not dismiss these ideas as outright false. He points out the extent of their limitation.
In nature you have thumbs which form the basis of measuring inches. You also have feet attached to your legs, and from those we derive another unit suitable to measure the world.
Yet many of us, when asked to describe the world fall victim to our inculcation to use these arbitrary measures to put something into words that isn't suitable for that kind of description. And rather than describing what is actually there, we end up sharing just some numerical data. An abstract concept that is not alive. Is not properly based in the experience of being in and part of the material world.
Every word fails to articulate the experience of being in and the nature of the universe. A word is man's coping mechanism to make up for his inability to demonstrate what he wishes to express in the natural world in real time. It is easier to say the word water than to splash some water in somebody's face. It gives us a means to refer to something that isn't there. The terminology is useless when you interact with someone who does not know the concept from experience.
Mastering Zen is not all about getting rid of emotion and detached from the material world. To treat yourself and the world like that is akin to considering the Buddha statue made of stone as superior to the Buddha made from flesh and blood. The only proper way to treat the world is to hold it in reverence. If you are going to eat a fish, then cook it properly.
Alan Watts resists the idea of viewing the world as an entity that is clearly divisible and measurable. The idea of the atom is an old idea. It derives from the Greek word atomos. Which means something along the lines of 'indivisible'. The smallest indivisible unit that we know of is the universe in its entirety. In this vein, the shortest distance between two points cannot be a straight line, because you will miss the whole thing if you take the shortcut. What is in between actually forms part of the two points between which you intend to travel. If you removed all the distance between two points, they would not be separate anymore at all. They would just be in the same place. Hence you need the way to have two points at all.
Greek philosophers thousands of years ago speculated that the world is made up of tiny indivisible particles. This is an absurd idea because you can never know if you have truly discovered the smallest part of something by division. Let's say you start out with an object like a loaf of bread, and you cut the loaf, and you keep cutting it in halves, eventually you will get to a point where the knife which you use for cutting is the same width as the element which you are attempting to split and you can go no further. This is evidence of your inability to continue dividing the thing up, but not much beyond that. We like objects that are squares to maintain our illusion that the world does function like that. Rectangular objects can be cut, and stacked and measured neatly. Not so easy with a round shape. Harder to keep a sphere in place and cut that. Yet nature is full of spheres and very few wiggles assume the shape of a square in their natural state.
It is not clear where you end and where the universe begins. The profound idea is that the entire universe is your outside the same way that your organs are your inside. The same way that the palm of your hand correlates with the back of your hand.
You rely on the universe being the way it is for you to exist, and has to be exactly the way it is for you to be capable of existing within it. It goes both ways. The universe needs you to be exactly the way that you are for it to exist. The enormity of the universe is no reason to feel small in comparison, because it is not clear or evident that you are separate from it in the first place.
I is simply an indication of location, rather than a pronoun indicating identity. Something like saying here or there.
Even when at first I considered it a bit silly, I now admit that Watts' philosophy of wiggles - is a remarkably modern and accurate way of looking at things, not any less ridiculous than the idea of atoms, meters and kilograms per se. Arguably less useful because nobody knows what on earth you are talking about when you call something a wiggle.
Plenty of other stuff in there, some of it went way over my head, some of it I have forgotten. This is what I still remember a week after getting through the recording.