Explain some watts please to me, :)

Explain this to me. I've listened to a fair bit of Alan watts in the couple of years. I enjoy it and agree with almost everything he says! And yet... something bugged me today in this talk here.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDKlTqt1pE

What annoys me is the idea that we can't do anything. We can't transform ourselves. I've heard a couple of people talk about this and greatly explain it to me but I'd like to hear what other people have to say and how they would explain it. It links in with the idea of letting it suck sometimes I feel. But does letting it suck mean you stop trying to fix something that sucks? It seems to me that if you're not in control of yourself like I feel watts suggests (and to a point I agree) that it doesn't matter if you let it suck or not because both actions are both part of what we can do or be. Can we let something suck (by expecting things to suck forever whether we will it to change or or not) AND at the same time do a little something to face the issue, by relieving it a little somehow and paying attention/ enjoying something else? Is that necessarily in contradiction with letting it suck? Can we grow attached to 'letting it suck' which might mean that we create a habit and /or an image of ourselves (e.g. being 'good' boys and girls by letting it suck)?

He also talks about the real you at one point and I want to ask whether we can attach ourselves to this idea of being the 'real' me which suddenly becomes another trap for the ego, another way to feel better than our previous selves or others? Is that so desirable to be something more or real in comparison to how we feel less or unreal?

Thanks guys and gals for your responses in advance! Have a nice day/ night!

I guess this wasn't meant for me, was it ... ? :laugh:

Haven't we been here ? :whistle:

once he explained the ego or "the I" as being an an imaginary association with the tensing of muscles in order to pay attention, he lost me

i dont really think that explanation is any good

1rst because it doesnt explain anything to me in any way that i can use

and 2nd because i think hes just wrong - about what that tension means and about the sense of "i" being predicated upon it

i expect that tension to be an expression of the nervous system in a deliberate state of heightened awareness - there is tension because there is higher demand than usual - a certain degree of nervous system tension is probably necessary to attentiveness - certainly its necessary to move in any way or support any weight, and if it didnt actually help us i think we would quit doing it

we can overdo it, yes but that doesnt make it the source of our sense of personal identity

the idea that we form an associate with an imaginary self more than with our simple biological self or spontaneous self i agree with

but saying that the ego is "just an idea, based on a funny feeling" is a totally inadequate articulation for the purposes of personal growth; its too vague - i mean what do i do with "its just an idea, based on a funny feeling"? well nothing - i cant do anything with that articulation because it doesnt really articulate anything

exactly what the ego is, im not going to try to unravel that in this post - im not sure i can but if i can it will take a while so i will skip that

he goes on to he say "we're only making a mess by trying to put things straight"

well my dad did not accept that kind of thinking when he told me to straighten up the mess in my room and i really dont think i can accept it either

we cant make changes if we dont concretely identify what needs to change and why it needs to change, but that doesnt mean that there are not any concrete changes to make or concrete reasons to make them or effective methods for doing so

what exactly is this "dead end" he speaks of?

"the human race has come to a dead end"???

what would darwin say to that?

the meaning of "dead end" is basically that youre on a path and that path can go no further

to say that the human race is on a dead end might make sense if you put it into some context of what path we were on which is no longer viable, and thats a case that maybe has merit but only within certain contexts, and he doesnt supply any context

he says we are "individually and socially at a dead end" and he leaves it at that but thats not a self evident assertion and he doesnt explain it or justufy it

merely saying "we are at a dead end" - its useless

he likes to make the point that who we really are is our spontaneous self which simply exists - and thats well and good but in all honesty my spontaneous self which simply exists has a funny sense of proportionality in its reactions to things

lets just say its not always very smart or effective, and honestly i think there are plenty of examples of that right here on totjo

i dislike watts's work because it never goes anywhere or takes me anywhere or sends me anywhere or even gives me general directions of where to go or why i should want to and meanwhile presents itself as some kind of discovery

but the totality of his message seems to be "theres nothing to discover" lol

i dont feel that i better understand anything about myself or the external world after listening to this and thats a common reaction to his work for me

i cant help but think that its appeal is in that it can give us the impression that we've learned something, or that we understand somethign significant, which doesnt require that we DO anything - it even tells us there is nothing to do

maybe i need someone to explain it to me also because either its total fluff or i am really missing something - and right now my explanation is that it is fluff

Hey! By coincidence I listened to this (again) earlier today. It covers ALOT of ground and whilst the first 45 minutes doesn't seem to be much of an answer to your question - I hope the last five minutes will make more sense. Watts is considerably more 'generous' in his explanation in the last five minutes here but I, at least, need the first 45 minutes to get into the right space - so I strongly recommend listening to the whole thing. Apols if you've already heard it before - but it might resonate differently this time!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypAEFCZBbuQ

The example I often come back to is getting out of bed in the morning. Physical disability or injury notwithstanding getting out of bed is easy - you just stand-up. But how often do we load this process with our wants, desires, fears, resistance etc ? I think these burdens are what we call the ego - they don't really exist, except in our mind. When you let them go it's easy to get out of bed - just stand-up. Clearly life is more complicated than just the action of getting out of bed - but I've found it a really helpful way to break into an actual practice of what Watt's speaks of.
The same idea can then be expanded into other activities: going to sleep, writing essays, public speaking, meditation, chores, work, play, sport - anything you might get hung-up about. Indeed I suspect it applies to anything at all. And none of it is self-improvement - you don't get better at these things. The things become easier to do. Or to break out of the dualism that traps us in the first place - there is no gap between what I am doing and what happens, and little or no obvious effort. When you just 'get-up, out of bed' - there is only 'getting-up out of bed'.
I could go on all day but as I'm merely regurgitating Watts - that's probably more than enough of my Chinese whispers!

You volunteer for an experiment and you're show two handles with a short rope attached to each of them. The ropes run into a wall and you cannot see behind it. You're told, "Your opponent is behind the wall and you're going to play tug of war. Your right arm is playing against his left arm and your left arm is playing against his right arm. You'll use both arms at the same time. When any one of the ropes is pulled all the way in so any handle touches the wall that person looses and the other wins."

After a while one of your arms gives way and it's pulled against the wall. You lose.

Then I show you there is nobody behind the wall and what appears to be two ropes are only one. You've been playing tug of war against yourself.

Irides!! I like to see it as our minds operate like the iris in the eye, they adjust the experience of perception to try and exist as some state of focus, this incurs tension as focus is increased.

Watt's seems to talk a lot about how busy the world is, and therefore how tense humanity has become to the point it has become distanced from a base nature of open awareness. We end up not even noticing, and we end up 'locked' in tension of focus. Ever had that experience of coming back from being out in the bush, the world looks... stupid, as everyone seems fixated on the latest iteration of 'new' more for that its new then for what it is. Society ends up surrounded itself in mindless expression, often meaningless.

So while I don't think focus is a bad thing, I think Watt's felt that humanity was losing its connection to itself. I don't think he means to advocate no focus, but rather he is trying to re-balance too much focus by focusing of no focus
:huh:
It's why I like that focus is part of the 3 Tenets. Mindful focus. But to exercise mindful focus we need to also learn how to unfocus, and indeed build a capacity to have a bigger depth of field and smooth and fast capacity to change focus. What do I mean by focus... I mean the capacity to contextualize ones experience in higher detail, to reveal accuracy. The experience of which is often about how much, how long and how dynamic the mental attention we place on something is. So for me I exercise both increasing focus and decreasing focus.