Alan Watts on "Ex nihilo nihil fit"

[godnotgod]

Here's another one of his essay's on nothingness, that I think works well with the idea that things, as form, exist as psychological events: NOTHINGNESS

Thank you! I have been looking for this for some time, but it did not seem to appear on other sites about Alan Watts. I can now save it in my own archives. Great!

Some people may wonder what the importance might be of trying to understand the idea of nothing in relation to something, or field in relation to figure. A brief excerpt from this essay:

"But to suggest how very powerful and important this nothing at all is, let me point out that if you didn't have space, you couldn't have anything solid. Without space outside the solid you wouldn't know where the solid's edges were. For example, you can see me in a photograph because you see a background and that background shows up my outline. But if it weren't there, then I and everything around me would merge into a single, rather peculiar mass. You always have to have a background of space to see a figure. The figure and the background, the solid and the space, are inseparable and go together."

Likewise, our current manifestations of who and what we are need to be seen against the background of that which is manifesting us. As Wats points out elsewhere in the essay, it is that part of our unconscious that we are unaware of that is responsible for the conscious aspect. In other words, we cannot truly know ourselves until we know what the background is all about. Our egos try to convince us that we are separate entities acting upon the world. But we are completely interdependent upon our environment. We are not born into the world, we come out of it, in the same way that an orange comes out of an orange tree. But we are temporal forms. Our existence as we are comes to an end. But if we understood that the temporal is connected to the background of the absolute, we might begin to see the temporal as illusory, and our conncection to the background of the absolute as being who we really are. We might think of our temporal selves as being in the state of Identification, while the authentic self of the Absolute as being formless and unborn.

 

[Alceste]

Isn't that only because our mainly Western view largely ignores it, focusing instead on figure in preference to field? I see his emphasis as an attempt at balancing that view.

Yes, I'm quite sure that's his opinion, having read the chapter on "Space" so recently. In fact he writes exactly that, using the differences between Japanese and Western art as an example.

The doctrine of ex nihilo nihil fit is not referring to a mode of perception; it is referring to what it sees as factual, and Watts is countering to that doctrine directly on the same grounds. Zen is more than just a 'mode of perception'; it is, in the words of Shunryu Suzuki, "seeing things as it is", if you get the gist; that is, "seeing reality exactly as it actually is". 'Something coming out of nothing' is not a perception of any observer, but a reality without any observer.

I agree that's how it feels to view the world through this perspective, but I don't think anything is gained by insisting that's how things really are. So I depart from most Eastern contemplatives on that point.

Yes. Do you suppose that might have to do with the way in which we perceive the present moment; that is, as a fleeting nano-second, rather than an infinite stillness?

I think it has to do with the way we perceive "nothing" - as a disturbing vacuum that must be filled rather than the infinitely malleable "something" from which all specific things arise and to which they all depart.

If that were so, he would not include in his discussion its essential relationship to solidity. Sorry, but I see no such 'fascination' at work here. In the world of Zen, we are always talking about the Ordinary, so one is ever 'fascinated' by any aspect of reality.

I don't believe Watts ever claims to be such an expert in practice.

 

[Alceste]

I think part of this may be in how we perceive nothing. I think a good question to ask when interpreting this, would be how is "nothing" being used.

A simple definition of "nothing" would be "the absence of things." But this is largely a psychological event. When we ask someone what is in our hands (when there is empty space), they will answer "nothing," despite there still being air molecules and bacteria and light rays and a host of other things that are perceived as insignificant to the question.

In a dark room, we may say that we see nothing, when in fact we still see blackness with all the fuzzy color distinctions and eye phenomena that go along with our visual sense.

So if nothing is a psychological event describing the absence of significant sensory data, things do indeed come from nothing to the individual waking to consciousness.

That's one way of looking at it, but I suspect that the "nothing" or the "void" in Eastern meditative traditions refers to a particular ... uh... vibration or something (not sure how to describe it) ... that one perceives underlying all material things during meditation. In other words, it's an experience, not a concept or an idea.

 

[Dunemeister]

"Weird" only to the conditioned mind, a mind conditioned in the first place with the falsehood that atoms are solid forms.

Now whose mind would that be?

....and everything does'nt take up all the space 100% of the time, so without empty space, or nothingness, there would be no "everything". And because everything always appears along with empty space, it follows that empty space is [absolutely] essential to the appearance of everything.

Nothing of the sort follows.

But it is NOT counterintuitive; it is counter-rational. A stronger argument would necessarily need to be rational, but only serve to confuse even more that which is already confusing to the rational mind. No. What is needed is an immediate intuitive insight into Watts statement, wihout rational argument, so that one sees directly and exactly what he is saying.

Ah, I see. The argument's no good, so the only way to understand it is through navel-gazing. Well fine, if that's what you're up to, go ahead, just don't make any claims about actual insight.

You do not simply because you are still firmly attached to the old rational idea that something cannot come out of nothing.

Well, to be fair, the claim is that something cannot come out of nothing by nothing. As a Christian, it's at least an option for me that God could speak into the void and create ex nihilo. I happen to think that's not what happened, but it's at least possible. What's NOT possible is for something to arise out of nothing by nothing.

Our most rational method of all, science, confirms this, in the Conservation Laws. But, as Watts, points out, it is much simpler than that, and it is this very simplicity that is so baffling to the rational mind, because the rational mind is always trying to 'make sense' out of what it thinks it sees; it is always trying to 'figure it out' when there is nothing to figure out.

Or it's stupid.

I once heard a story of a university professor who, on the first day of class each semester, would immediately toss a box of matches out to his class upon entering the room, while asking: "What is this?"

You are not taking the time to actually look into the nature of his statement, and are reacting from your conditioned responses. You have said so yourself, in so many words:

"Do I have any arguments? No, it just seems right to me."

That something 'seems' right is unreliable.

Yet you've said that arguments are unavailable and not necessary. So on what basis ado you yourself accept the claims of Watt? It must be because the theory "seems right" to you. So why is your seeming right, but not mine, reliable?

We need to know and understand. And that is what Watts is trying to do: to awaken a different form of conscious attention in us so that we are in a position to see correctly that which, all along, we only assumed to be what our rational minds have told us it is.

Nah, he's just talking nonsense but using sufficiently flowery and teasing language to get people who are fond of novelty to believe him.

You, who have no arguments, demand stronger argument from others?

Yes. For it is Watt who is arguing against a universally held intuition. If you're going to overturn such a fundamental intuition, you need extremely good arguments.

 

[Dunemeister]

Well, that's fine. But right now we're discussing the philosophy of nothing, so dubious defining and metaphysical issues are the meat of what we're playing around with here.

Yeah, I get it. But so far we haven't even seen the first stage of the process: the defining. Of course, godnotgod just wants us to be still and know Watt is right. No arguments required.

Similarly, I don't go around in life seeing things as chemical reactions or quantum relationships. But I do certainly exist in a world of forms--a relationship between space and solid, things and no thing. The scientific has its truth; the metaphysical seems to as well.

Metaphysics can be a useful tool at times, but it's nothing to base a life on. Just sayin'.

 

[dust1n]

It's a dogma of Western thought expressed in the Latin phrase "ex nihilo nihil fit," "out of nothing comes nothing." But that's not so! Out of nothing comes something!!

I would argue that out of somethingness, that nothingness can be conceptualized. He got it backwards.

 

[godnotgod]

I agree that's how it feels to view the world through this perspective, but I don't think anything is gained by insisting that's how things really are. So I depart from most Eastern contemplatives on that point.

Sure. There is the perception as to how things are, and the way they actually are. I don't think the Eastern view is an opinion based on perception, but one of the way reality actually is. To have an opinion of reality, one must use thought. There must be a thinker, an observer. Neither of these are present in the Eastern view. There is only seeing itself. Observer and observed become what they are: one. But you are correct: there is nothing to be gained, and that is the point, actually.

I think it has to do with the way we perceive "nothing" - as a disturbing vacuum that must be filled rather than the infinitely malleable "something" from which all specific things arise and to which they all depart.

Isn't that just another way of saying that the nature of something is actually no-thing. When the specific returns to its source, it returns to the state of the undifferentiated, the formless. In other words, it returns to the state of no-thing.

I don't believe Watts ever claims to be such an expert in practice.

Ordinariness is one of the key aspects of Zen. It does'nt take an expert practitioner in Zen to understand this.

But I agree that during Watts time, there were a lot of ungrounded "spacey" views based on spiritually illegal drug use. Watts is far too good a thinker for drugs to have been a distorting factor. If this is so, and if you have had first hand experience in this area, then you can probably spot inconsistencies at a glance. Can you provide an example of what you think is one of his drug-induced, erroneous conclusions?

 

[godnotgod]

Nothing of the sort follows.

Science accepts mathematical correlations of 7 and above on a scale of 1 to 10, as valid. I think we can safely say that, since empty space accompanies solidity 100% of the time, that they are essential to one another.

Ah, I see. The argument's no good, so the only way to understand it is through navel-gazing. Well fine, if that's what you're up to, go ahead, just don't make any claims about actual insight.

Heh! What you call navel-gazing, with an obviously derogative tone, is a means of gaining that insight.

You asked for an expanded argument about this issue. Did you read the Watts link on Nothingness which Guitar provided? Please go read that first before you make any more statements about there not being enough argument to support his statements. I am providing it here again for your convenience:

http://www.wayneholland.org/nothingness.htm

Well, to be fair, the claim is that something cannot come out of nothing by nothing. As a Christian, it's at least an option for me that God could speak into the void and create ex nihilo. I happen to think that's not what happened, but it's at least possible. What's NOT possible is for something to arise out of nothing by nothing.

It is if 'something' is empty.

Or it's stupid.

No, it's not stupid. It's just out of context. Dogma is stupid.

Yet you've said that arguments are unavailable and not necessary. So on what basis ado you yourself accept the claims of Watt? It must be because the theory "seems right" to you. So why is your seeming right, but not mine, reliable?

Mine is not a theory. I see that something comes out of nothing, just as Watts tells us. There is no thought involved in seeing this, and so, no theory is formulated. It is not something that merely 'seems' right based on a previously held doctrine, idea, theory, idea, conjecture, etc.

Nah, he's just talking nonsense but using sufficiently flowery and teasing language to get people who are fond of novelty to believe him.

You are speaking of Jesus, here?

Yes. For it is Watt who is arguing against a universally held intuition. If you're going to overturn such a fundamental intuition, you need extremely good arguments.

Sorry, but ex nihilo nihil fit is not based upon intuition at all, but on pure theocratic dogma, at least in Christianity. The statement can only be made where a creator God has been previously assumed to exist. It states that there is no time interval in which a world didn't exist, since it couldn't be created ex nihilo in the first place. But this assumes creation. Watts is not saying that something is created, but only that it comes out of nothing. In other words, it is the 'on' phase of the 'on/off' cycle. "Now you see it/now you don't". It is a cyclical view, and coincides with all other behavior of naturally occurring phenomena.

Please go to the link provided on Nothingness for an expanded discussion of this idea.

 

[godnotgod]

I would argue that out of somethingness, that nothingness can be conceptualized. He got it backwards.

This assumes the prior existence of somethingness to begin with. So we are back at square one. From whence does this somethingness arise? And how can we possibly understand that somethingness is actually what it is, unless seen against a background of no-thing-ness? Nothingness would already need to have been in place when somethingness came into being. Otherwise, if we think of nothingness as actually containing something, then I can see your argument. But then, Watts statement would make sense here, that something comes out of nothing.

Nothingness is unbounded and infinite, so how can it possibly be conceptualized?

"The Tao that can be tao'd is not the true Tao."

 

[godnotgod]

Yeah, I get it. But so far we haven't even seen the first stage of the process: the defining. Of course, godnotgod just wants us to be still and know Watt is right. No arguments required.

Not so. godnotgod only wants you to go see for yourself, leaving your opinions and concepts behind.

Metaphysics can be a useful tool at times, but it's nothing to base a life on. Just sayin'.

....unless it can demonstrate to you something vital which you previously did not know about yourself.

 

[Alceste]

Sure. There is the perception as to how things are, and the way they actually are. I don't think the Eastern view is an opinion based on perception, but one of the way reality actually is. To have an opinion of reality, one must use thought. There must be a thinker, an observer. Neither of these are present in the Eastern view. There is only seeing itself. Observer and observed become what they are: one. But you are correct: there is nothing to be gained, and that is the point, actually.

I am not arguing that this is the claim. I'm simply pointing out they can not know they are seeing anything that is objectively real, nor do they care for the most part. I think calling it "the world as it really is" can potentially block Westerners from understanding because we overvalue the distinction between truth and fiction.

Isn't that just another way of saying that the nature of something is actually no-thing. When the specific returns to its source, it returns to the state of the undifferentiated, the formless. In other words, it returns to the state of no-thing.

Um - no, I don't think so. Maybe Watts thinks so.

Ordinariness is one of the key aspects of Zen. It does'nt take an expert practitioner in Zen to understand this.

But I agree that during Watts time, there were a lot of ungrounded "spacey" views based on spiritually illegal drug use. Watts is far too good a thinker for drugs to have been a distorting factor. If this is so, and if you have had first hand experience in this area, then you can probably spot inconsistencies at a glance. Can you provide an example of what you think is one of his drug-induced, erroneous conclusions?

Drug induced =/= erroneous. There are certain moods, attitudes, realizations, characteristics that make it a pretty simple thing to spot a fellow psychonaut. I have to go to work, but I could elaborate later. I don't have an anti-entheogenic bias, so when I say I can see the drugs at work it isn't a criticism.

 

[Dunemeister]

Not so. godnotgod only wants you to go see for yourself, leaving your opinions and concepts behind.

Done. Still not impressed by Watts' "argument".

....unless it can demonstrate to you something vital which you previously did not know about yourself.

Which it can't. That's not the job of metaphysics (unless you're confusing it with something else?)

 

[Alceste]

But I agree that during Watts time, there were a lot of ungrounded "spacey" views based on spiritually illegal drug use. Watts is far too good a thinker for drugs to have been a distorting factor. If this is so, and if you have had first hand experience in this area, then you can probably spot inconsistencies at a glance. Can you provide an example of what you think is one of his drug-induced, erroneous conclusions?

OK, I'm back. There are so many assumptions buried in this comment it's hard to know where to start. First, the assumption that intelligence is some defense against the effect of psychotropic drugs. It is irrelevant how "good a thinker" one is. Psychoactive change the traffic patterns of your neurons. There's no way you can think them back into the pattern they used to follow. It's like virginity - you can't think your way out of having had a sexual experience.

Second, the assumption that realizations resulting from drug-induced states of mind are inferior to realizations resulting from other methods of inducing altered states of mind, such as meditation. For many of us who haven't got the time or the inclination to meditate for several hours a day for many years, nature's bounty provides us with a short-cut by which we can sneak a peak behind the curtain in an afternoon and see what all the buzz is about. Many cultures have very insightful religions entirely based on the use of psychoactive substances. Also the idea that using something like peyote to open your eyes results in an experience that is somehow "false" betrays a sense of enmity and separation from the biosphere of which you are a part. From a non-dualistic perspective, you are the peyote and the peyote is you. Therefore, you value, respect and cherish it as you cherish yourself.

Third, the idea that psychoactive drug use "distorts" perception. IME, it does the opposite. Yes, you can often see some peculiar faces in the shrubbery and your mind may begin to work in mysterious and unfamiliar ways, but lasting psychological breakthroughs can occur. Research into the effects of psylocybin has shown that it is has a beneficial effect on depression, for example. In many cases, an enduring and genuine peace of mind follows a spiritual "high" that makes a lasting, life-changing impression.

So, that said. I believe I can see the lasting effects of some use of psychotropics on just about everything Watts writes. Kind of like the way if you put your mind to it you could differentiate between virgins and non-virgins based on watching people walk around the mall. You might call it something like the sway of the hips, or something in the eyes. With a writer, I might call it a kind of fascination with and enjoyment of the flow of ideas through one's own mind, and a non-judgmental appreciation of the absurdity of the human condition.

 

[dust1n]

This assumes the prior existence of somethingness to begin with. So we are back at square one. From whence does this somethingness arise?

Who said somethingness has not always existed?

 

[godnotgod]

Who said somethingness has not always existed?

Fine, but by what means do we identify it's quality of somethingness-ness?

 

[godnotgod]

OK, I'm back. There are so many assumptions buried in this comment it's hard to know where to start. First, the assumption that intelligence is some defense against the effect of psychotropic drugs. It is irrelevant how "good a thinker" one is. Psychoactive change the traffic patterns of your neurons. There's no way you can think them back into the pattern they used to follow. It's like virginity - you can't think your way out of having had a sexual experience.

Second, the assumption that realizations resulting from drug-induced states of mind are inferior to realizations resulting from other methods of inducing altered states of mind, such as meditation. For many of us who haven't got the time or the inclination to meditate for several hours a day for many years, nature's bounty provides us with a short-cut by which we can sneak a peak behind the curtain in an afternoon and see what all the buzz is about. Many cultures have very insightful religions entirely based on the use of psychoactive substances. Also the idea that using something like peyote to open your eyes results in an experience that is somehow "false" betrays a sense of enmity and separation from the biosphere of which you are a part. From a non-dualistic perspective, you are the peyote and the peyote is you. Therefore, you value, respect and cherish it as you cherish yourself.

Third, the idea that psychoactive drug use "distorts" perception. IME, it does the opposite. Yes, you can often see some peculiar faces in the shrubbery and your mind may begin to work in mysterious and unfamiliar ways, but lasting psychological breakthroughs can occur. Research into the effects of psylocybin has shown that it is has a beneficial effect on depression, for example. In many cases, an enduring and genuine peace of mind follows a spiritual "high" that makes a lasting, life-changing impression.

So, that said. I believe I can see the lasting effects of some use of psychotropics on just about everything Watts writes. Kind of like the way if you put your mind to it you could differentiate between virgins and non-virgins based on watching people walk around the mall. You might call it something like the sway of the hips, or something in the eyes. With a writer, I might call it a kind of fascination with and enjoyment of the flow of ideas through one's own mind, and a non-judgmental appreciation of the absurdity of the human condition.

You've succeeded in demonstrating how to detect another drug user's telltale fingerprint, but that is not what I am asking. I simply want you to show me how and where the irreversible effects of drug use on Watts brain has resulted in warped logic as pertains to the topic in question. If that is not what you have been suggesting all along, then I stand corrected, and if that is the case, then why the sidetrack?

 

[godnotgod]

Done. Still not impressed by Watts' "argument".

He's not trying to impress anyone. No wonder you miss the point! You are reading him with a preconception in mind. Sounds like you did a real wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am job of it, did'nt you? Been there, done that, ho-hum, seen one, seen 'em all, next!

Which it can't. That's not the job of metaphysics (unless you're confusing it with something else?)

No, it is not the stated duty or the "job" of metaphysics to do anything at all. There is nothing coercive about it. And that is the beauty of it. You can drink of its waters or not. That is anyone's choice, but its springs continue to flow on regardless.

In your case, metaphysics only has value insofar as it serves the Christian dogma. In a nutshell, we might say that the truth is bent to fit the Christian's teeth. If it disagrees with that dogma, then it is clearly wrong, as dictated by dogma. It is all held within an airtight vacuum.

But for many of us, metaphysics can be the pathway to a greater understanding of one's own nature, the ultimate realization of which is known as the enlightened state.

"it is by metaphysics that one will evolve into a state of Consciousness where one increasingly becomes aware of one's movement into a realization of one's Self as a Essential Part of the Vast Universe one previously felt separate from."

What is Metaphysics and What is it Good For - Absolutely Everything

Ultimately, I see it as a feather in one's cap, or a vehicle which carries us along a certain part of the path toward the goal of enlightenment and liberation.

I realize there are some to whom metaphysical questioning is seen as having little or no value. Someone once told me they have zero interest in attaining the enlightened state. As I stated, it is like a mountain spring. One may stop and drink of its waters, or simply move on. Both choices are fine. But if you are one who spurns its waters, then please refrain from thinking that you know all about the taste, and if you do stop to partake of its waters, please also refrain from compartmentalizing the living experience into some dead doctrine you think is superior to everyone else's.

....afterthought....

I mean, hey, if you are already saved lock stock and barrel and know you are going to heaven, who gives a rat's patootie about silly questions concerning the nature of things? We are far too concerned with our heavenly reward, or what the Buddhists call having a 'gaining idea'. Interesting that while the believer looks forward in intense anticipation of such things, the Buddhist does everything possible to free himself of such fetters, focusing instead only upon immediate reality.

 

[godnotgod]

I am not arguing that this is the claim. I'm simply pointing out they can not know they are seeing anything that is objectively real,....

They don't. It is not an object-oriented experience.

How can you know what they know and see? You are looking at it from the outside.

.....nor do they care for the most part.

???????????....excuse me?

I think calling it "the world as it really is" can potentially block Westerners from understanding because we overvalue the distinction between truth and fiction.

*cough*....EXCUSE ME!!??:biglaugh:

Um - no, I don't think so. Maybe Watts thinks so.

No, that is what I am saying. What the specific returns to is not undifferentiated?

Drug induced =/= erroneous. There are certain moods, attitudes, realizations, characteristics that make it a pretty simple thing to spot a fellow psychonaut. I have to go to work, but I could elaborate later. I don't have an anti-entheogenic bias, so when I say I can see the drugs at work it isn't a criticism.

My goodness! We'd best alert the authorities! Why, this druggie Watts fellow could be dangerous, what with him giving lectures under a scholarly disguise about such psycho babbling nonsense as 'Prickles and Goo' to IBM executives, nonetheless!....AND THEY BELIEVE HIM, FER GOD'S SAKE!

 

[godnotgod]

Who said somethingness has not always existed?

On second thought, 'somethingness' is only an abstraction, a vague idea or quality about things. It can only exist as a mental construct.

But my question stands: by what reference do we determine that something is what it is?

 

[Alceste]

How can you know what they know and see? You are looking at it from the outside.

How do you know?

???????????....excuse me?

*cough*....EXCUSE ME!!??:biglaugh:

We overvalue the distinction between truth and fiction in the West and are forever trying to sort them into separate piles. To a person who has had a satori experience, it's all fiction. Read fifteen of Zenzero's posts and you'll understand what I mean.

No, that is what I am saying. What the specific returns to is not undifferentiated?

It doesn't go anywhere.

My goodness! We'd best alert the authorities! Why, this druggie Watts fellow could be dangerous, what with him giving lectures under a scholarly disguise about such psycho babbling nonsense as 'Prickles and Goo' to IBM executives, nonetheless!....AND THEY BELIEVE HIM, FER GOD'S SAKE!

Uh...

Okaaaaay.

Something tells me nothing from the lengthy post on psychotropics went in. :rainbow1: