Alan Watts on "Ex nihilo nihil fit"

[godnotgod]

How do you know?

You made a couple of statements to that effect:

"I'm simply pointing out they can not know they are seeing anything that is objectively real..."

and....

"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."

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.

I agree.

It doesn't go anywhere.

Oh. You previously stated this:

"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."

This is not 'coming out of' and 'returning to'? You call nothing a "something", quotation marks indicating some uncertainty or vagueness. Are you speaking of the Tao?

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

Can you just point out one example of Watts erroneous thought process due to his drug use? Quite frankly, I see nothing of any suspicious character in anything he has written. Could you be reading too much into it, based upon YOUR drug experiences? We are discussing the validity of an idea, but how can I trust what YOU say, since your responses emerge from a brain that has been irreversibly changed by drugs?

 

[Dunemeister]

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!


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.

Yes, I quite forgot. I'm Christian, therefore stupid, delusional, insane, wilfully ignorant, or some combination.

 

[Alceste]

You made a couple of statements to that effect:

Now how would I know it's experiential if I hadn't experienced it? How would I know "the Force" is difficult to describe if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes?

Oh. You previously stated this:

Sure, the previous statement dealt with life, growth and death, including the birth and death of universes. Not the idea that on either side of this moment all of substance comes into being and departs. This statement has to do with the fact that the computer I am typing on now is still here..... now. It doesn't go anywhere. Not for a long while.

This is not 'coming out of' and 'returning to'? You call nothing a "something", quotation marks indicating some uncertainty or vagueness. Are you speaking of the Tao?

I'm speaking of what Lao Tsu would refer to as the nameless, or the mysterious female, or the source, or the eternally real, or any number of other things, which is not necessarily the tao. Tao means "way." Not "source". The nearest concepts to what I'm talking about would be the qi or jing of Taoists - different forms of subtle energy. That's what goes into all the "space" you make in your being if you are a practicing Taoist or Buddhist - lots and lots of qi. Qi is "something". It can be felt, seen, measured and used by those who have learned the requisite skills. And it is the eternal, undifferentiated unity of subtle energy that sages perceive.

Can you just point out one example of Watts erroneous thought process due to his drug use? Quite frankly, I see nothing of any suspicious character in anything he has written. Could you be reading too much into it, based upon YOUR drug experiences? We are discussing the validity of an idea, but how can I trust what YOU say, since your responses emerge from a brain that has been irreversibly changed by drugs?

Did you miss the post where I said "drug-induced =/= erroneous"? You keep harping on about this and I have no idea why .You're the only one insisting that the influence of psychotropics on someone's thinking means the thinking has to be wrong.

 

[godnotgod]

Did you miss the post where I said "drug-induced =/= erroneous"?

Your symbols were not clear.

You keep harping on about this and I have no idea why .You're the only one insisting that the influence of psychotropics on someone's thinking means the thinking has to be wrong.

Smoke originally brought it up. He condemns Watts entire argument as 'nonsense', linking it to drugs:

Originally Posted by godnotgod
Does that [Watts druge use] have any bearing on the validity of his statement concerning ex nihilo nihil fit?

Originally posted by Smoke:

It was meant as my comment on his argument. It's nonsense, the kind of thing that might be produced by a drug-addled mind.

Originally Posted by godnotgod
Besides, how do you know how much drugs he did?

Originally posted by Smoke:
I don't. But we know he experimented with psychedelics, and you have wonder sometimes ...

 

[godnotgod]

Sure, the previous statement dealt with life, growth and death, including the birth and death of universes. Not the idea that on either side of this moment all of substance comes into being and departs. This statement has to do with the fact that the computer I am typing on now is still here..... now. It doesn't go anywhere. Not for a long while.

Some things take longer for their forms to dissolve away, but they all eventually do. The computer does not originally exist as a computer.

You are saying that the computer is here as something. What is the reference by which you determine that?

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by calling 'nothing' a "malleable something"? And how are you using the term 'arise'?

 

[godnotgod]

Now how would I know it's experiential if I hadn't experienced it?

By having learned of the experiences of others.

About the Eastern view, you previously stated:

"I'm simply pointing out they can not know they are seeing anything that is objectively real..."

The Eastern view is neither subjective nor objective.

How would I know "the Force" is difficult to describe if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes?

Just because you claim it is difficult to describe does not mean you are seeing something that is real.

Zen practitioners, during sesshin meditation, see all sorts of hallucinations (makyo) with their own eyes that they swear are real.

Eastern wisdom tells us that any two people who are seeing correctly will see exactly the same reality. Any personal views will have been dropped. Why should they see reality any differently? Why should they not see it "as it is"? Logic tells me that if you do not see reality "as it is", you will see it as something else.

You have also stated that you depart from the Eastern view on this point, so you do not see the same reality that they do. You seem to think that their view is based upon a feeling, rather than a true view of 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, 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.

Actually, the 'Eastern view' is not really an Eastern view perse, but a Universal View, when seen correctly. Westerners call it an 'Eastern view' as if it were a particular view, but that is only because they are seeing it through the filter of their own particular Western view. If Westerners are practicing Eastern style meditation, then the correct thing to occur will be for their Western view, comprised as it is of opinion, concept, idea, conjecture, etc, to drop away. Reality itself does not conform to any particular view.

When Watts states that "nothing is essential to something", or that "everything comes out of nothing", he is reflecting a universal view of reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I quite forgot. I'm Christian, therefore stupid, delusional, insane, wilfully ignorant, or some combination.

You need'nt be so proud of it!

 

[godnotgod]

I'm speaking of what Lao Tsu would refer to as the nameless, or the mysterious female, or the source, or the eternally real, or any number of other things, which is not necessarily the tao. Tao means "way." Not "source".

'Tao' can mean 'way' or 'path', but also has many other meanings, one of which is 'source':

"A common usage is a symbolic reference to its basic meaning of "road" or "way", indicating "the right way". This usage is shared among Taoists, Confucianists, and Buddhists in China. Tao also refers to the full coming into being of the spirit or mind. This can also be perceived as a state of enlightenment or the reaching of spiritual perfection. In a related meaning, the word is used to refer to the highest state of morality and good character. All of these labels relate the intellectual and spiritual paths and achievements of the faithful to the broader concept of Tao.

Tao can [also] be conceived as the primordial principle from which all existence arose and arises. An alternative interpretation of the same concept frames it as the universal tao being that which brings all things into being. In this context, Te is the essence of a thing or that which causes a thing to be that thing."

Wikipedia
********

Many of the translations of Chapter 1 of the Tao te Ching refer to the nameless Tao as either the 'source' or the 'originator' of all things.

See here:

http://www.bopsecrets.org/gateway/passages/tao-te-ching.htm

Tao, or the Way, IS the Source:

The Way is without form or quality,
But expresses all forms and qualities;*
The Way is hidden and implicate,
But expresses all of nature;
The Way is unchanging,
But expresses all motion.

Beneath sensation and memory
The Way is the source of all the world.

Tao te Ching, Ch. 21

*The Way is without form or quality, [ie: nothingness[
But expresses [ie: 'manifests'] all forms and qualities [ie: everything]

....just another way of saying 'everything comes out of nothing' ala Watts.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I gather what Watts is illustrating here is discernment. We "see" things as a result of solids and spaces. If all was a solid there would be no space and conversely if all were just space there would be no solid. In such cases, were it possible, all space should it be so, would suddenly lose any discernment of space because there would be nothing solid in which to identify something as space and if all was solid there would be a loss of discernment of what is solid due to a lack of any space to give it a form of what can be recognised as solid. It would be the space that one would be able to make a discernment of that which is solid and it would be what is solid that one can discern what is space. We only exist because of solids and spaces as a whole and the illusory nature of being and what is regarded to be "I" is brought about by the perceptions that we get as a result from solids and spaces.

To go a bit further we appear as reasonably solid with a recognizable form as a human being yet when seen on an atomic level we are comprised of vast spaces contrasted by minute solids and such a recognizable form such as a human being is now suddenly "lost" and all there is at this level is atoms, protons, gluons, buckyballs, and quarks. Apparently lifeless here. Yet life is a result of this lifelessness.

Although I didn't care at all for Alan Watts upon first impression, I later found him to be a vastly interesting man who had a very unique view and outlook to say at least and one that can cause a person to explore in a unique directions that can be easily overlooked otherwise.

 

[Willamena]

We "see" things as a result of solids and spaces.

But, we see things as solids and spaces. How then can they be the cause of our seeing them? (Magic!)

... because there would be nothing solid in which to identify something as space and if all was solid there would be a loss of discernment of what is solid due to a lack of any space to give it a form of what can be recognised as solid. It would be the space that one would be able to make a discernment of that which is solid and it would be what is solid that one can discern what is space.

What you're describing is solids a result of seeing spaces, and spaces a result of seeing solids.

We only exist because of solids and spaces as a whole...

So what makes us discern solids and spaces?

 

[godnotgod]

What we call 'solids' and 'space' are concepts; a duality, where no such duality actually exists. It is just a convenient way for our rational, thinking minds to categorize reality with. In other words, there really are no such things as space or solids, but spacesolids. They are actually one reality. If, when you look at something solid, you see space, and vice-versa, you may get a feel for their being inextricably joined at the hip. What we are forgetting is what the Yin-Yang symbol is actually symbolizing. Take another look. You see that, within the two major halves, there lies within them a small contrasting circle of the opposite color. This, within the larger Major Yang (white portion), is called the Minor Yin, and vice-versa (Major Yin/Minor Yang). The universal symbol of Yin/Yang encompasses all dualities, each of which contains within it the nature of its opposite. It is what makes it possible for space to be essential to solid, and vice versa.

All dualities are, therefore, relative one to the other. One cannot exist without the existence of the other. Simply put, they are two halves of the same singular reality, a reality that is always One.

If you visualize 'something', you can only do it via of 'nothing', something being the field, and nothing the ground. There is no field without ground. It is simply impossible.

 

[godnotgod]

....all there is at this [atomic[ level is atoms, protons, gluons, buckyballs, and quarks. Apparently lifeless here. Yet life is a result of this lifelessness.

There is intense vibration (dance?) going on at this level, and I dare say, consciousness. Perhaps it is not 'life' as we understand it, but it is nonetheless alive and vibrant with energy, it being energy itself.

 

[godnotgod]

Visually, light, shadow, form, space, and depth perception together allow us to distinguish solids from each other.

 

[godnotgod]

I gather what Watts is illustrating here is discernment.

Discernment is already there. What he is trying to emphasize is the essential and inseparable relationship one to the other of space and solid; of nothing and everything.

 

[godnotgod]

The Buddhist Scientist, Once an Oxymoron Now Solid Reality

"What is Real? Both Science and Eastern Traditions have spent many centuries trying to work out the answer to this simple question. Modern Science is now in agreement with Buddhist thought on the nature of Reality. The development of Quantum Mechanics declares that what we perceive as Reality doesn’t exist.

Fritjof Capra(1975), a well-known theoretical physicist, has shown how present-day physics has almost completely abolished any solid concepts of our world, with the exception of energy. In a summarizing statement, he says:

“In modern physics, the universe is thus experienced as a dynamic, inseparable whole which always includes the observer in an essential way. In this experience, the traditional concepts of space and time, of isolating objects, and of cause and effect, lose their meaning. Such an experience, however, is very similar to that of the Eastern mystics.”

What we interact with is mostly empty space. The right causes and conditions when present merge a few bits of matter with space to form an object. We label these objects with names like people, tables, cars, birds, etc. Yet the underlying nature of all objects, which appear different, is the same. To the Physicists, there is no longer any single object; everything is one and the same object. My favorite representation of this in Eastern terms is Indra’s Net.

The bridge between Science and Eastern Traditions is getting increasingly smaller. Many Scientists are now calling both “complementary roads to the same knowledge, supplementing each other in providing a fuller understanding of the universe”(Capra). The acceptance and merging of Eastern and Western concepts is the acceptance of universal law, or Dharma. The once oxymoron Buddhist Scientist is no longer."

The Buddhist Scientist, Once an Oxymoron Now Solid Reality

 

[Twilight Hue]

But, we see things as solids and spaces. How then can they be the cause of our seeing them? (Magic!)

That's the interesting part. I wonder? Is the composition of anything comprised of a complete solid or space?

I'm not under the impression that we or the universe manifests as a true solid or space. Both are perceived in what comprises for instance say a human being's make up like muscle tissue and air in the lungs which in turn enables us for this moment to "see" this. Therefore in this case solids and spaces happen to be essential involving the initial composition of a human being well before any ability can be used and developed for the perception of this.

What you're describing is solids a result of seeing spaces, and spaces a result of seeing solids.

More like an identification here inso that one contrasts another, so whatever our attention happens to be drawn to we tend to identify as such.

So what makes us discern solids and spaces?

I would say our natural experiences point things out well enough here.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What we call 'solids' and 'space' are concepts; a duality, where no such duality actually exists. It is just a convenient way for our rational, thinking minds to categorize reality with. In other words, there really are no such things as space or solids, but spacesolids. They are actually one reality. If, when you look at something solid, you see space, and vice-versa, you may get a feel for their being inextricably joined at the hip. What we are forgetting is what the Yin-Yang symbol is actually symbolizing. Take another look. You see that, within the two major halves, there lies within them a small contrasting circle of the opposite color. This, within the larger Major Yang (white portion), is called the Minor Yin, and vice-versa (Major Yin/Minor Yang). The universal symbol of Yin/Yang encompasses all dualities, each of which contains within it the nature of its opposite. It is what makes it possible for space to be essential to solid, and vice versa.

All dualities are, therefore, relative one to the other. One cannot exist without the existence of the other. Simply put, they are two halves of the same singular reality, a reality that is always One.

If you visualize 'something', you can only do it via of 'nothing', something being the field, and nothing the ground. There is no field without ground. It is simply impossible.

I think of Shunryu Suzuki when he writes about posture in zazen. How when you cross your legs you lose the duality of your feet and that left is no longer the right foot and not separate. All is whole. I like the Yin-Yang symbol as it illustrates what words cannot. What you are pointing out here is correct enough but at times we still have to draw our attention towards duality for the purpose of conveyance. Otherwise it will be exceedingly difficult to express and relay things like this through words if even possible.

 

[godnotgod]

I like the Yin-Yang symbol as it illustrates what words cannot. What you are pointing out here is correct enough but at times we still have to draw our attention towards duality for the purpose of conveyance. Otherwise it will be exceedingly difficult to express and relay things like this through words if even possible.

Yes, of course. The reason this little nothing/something exercise is so important is that it can lead to being aware of the absolute background to our own temporal existence. It is from this new awareness that we can correctly access the world of relative opposites, without becoming identified/attached to one or the other. The dualities are all still there, but we see them from a new vantage point, in which they are complimentary rather than conflicting, and their complimentary aspect can only be understood from the viewpoint of their being One. This is, essentially, the difference between delusion and enlightenment, the former being the cause of our metaphysical suffering. The conflict that we imagine is only one that exists as illusion within the mind. A concept of The Good is seen in conflict with Evil, and Evil, therefore, must be fought. In fighting Evil, one only makes Evil stronger, and suffering due to hatred ensues. When understood as complimentary, we then see how they interact one with the other.