Out Of Your Mind - A Philosophy Of The Origins Of The Universe
I'm going to post some passages, here and in the comment section, from a series of lectures given by the new age philosopher Alan Watts in the 60's and 70's, which were then accumulated into a book "Out Of Your Mind" by his son Mark Watts. I have been listening to it as an audiobook and find it endlessly interesting.
The ceramic model of the universe originates from the book of Genesis, from which Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all derive their basic picture of the world. And the image of the world that comes from the book of Genesis is that the world is an artifact made by the Creator—just as a potter forms pots out of clay, or a carpenter fashions tables and chairs from wood. Don’t forget that Jesus, the Son of God, is also the son of a carpenter. So, in this way, the image of God we have is one of a potter, carpenter, technician, or architect who creates the universe in accordance with his plan.
© 2017 Alan Watts.
Essential to this first model of the universe is the notion that the world consists of stuff—primordial matter or substance. And just as the potter takes clay and imposes his will upon it, so does the Creator craft the universe out of this fundamental stuff. He takes it and makes it into whatever he wants. And so in the book of Genesis, the Lord God makes Adam out of dust—he fashions a clay figurine, breathes into it, and it becomes alive. The clay becomes informed. See, by itself, the clay is formless and comes with no intelligence, so it requires an external intelligence—an external energy—to bring it to life and put some sense in it.
This is how we’ve inherited the concept of ourselves as artifacts, as things that were made. In our culture, children ask their parents, “How was I made?” or “Who made me?” But these aren’t questions asked by Chinese or Indian (specifically, Hindu) children. Now, a Chinese child might ask her mother, “How did I grow?” But growing and making are entirely different procedures. You see, when you make something, you put it together—you arrange its parts, you work from the outside to the in. Again, that’s how a potter works on clay, or a sculptor works on stone. However, when you watch something grow, it happens in the opposite direction—that is, from the inside to the out. Growth means that something expands, burgeons, blossoms, and happens all over itself at once. The original, simple form of a living cell in the womb will progressively complicate itself.
That’s what the growing process looks like, as opposed to the making process. Note that in this model, there’s a fundamental difference between the maker and the made thing, between the Creator and his creature.
Where did this idea originate? Basically, the ceramic model of the universe came out of cultures with monarchical forms of government. And so, for them, the maker of the universe was also conceived as the king of the universe—“King of kings, Lord of lords, only Ruler of princes . . .”—I’m quoting from the Book of Common Prayer here. People who orient themselves to the universe in this way relate to basic reality as a subject relates to a king, and so they’re on very humble terms with whatever it is that runs the whole show. I find it odd that here in the United States, citizens of a democracy still hold to such a monarchical theory of the universe.
So the idea that we must kneel, bow, and prostrate before the Lord of the universe out of humility and respect is a holdover from ancient Near Eastern cultures. But why? Basically, no one is more frightened than a tyrant. That’s why he sits with his back to the wall while you must approach him from below with your face to the ground. See, you can’t use your weapons that way. When you approach the ruler, you don’t stand up and face him, because you might attack him. And very well you might, because he rules your life, and the man who rules your life is the biggest crook in the bunch. In other words, the ruler is the one who’s allowed to commit crimes against you; criminals are just people we lock up in jail.
Preface © 2017 Mark Watts.
Tags
Who is online
563 visitors
The premise that runs through most of Alan Watts thinking is that we, human beings, are the big bang .
I'm not sure how he accounts for the original creation, I suspect he doesnt have an answer for that, but he does reject the patriarchal model of God.
I like explanations for our existence that do not rely purely on science, we can framework cosmology in more human centered ways in my opinion.
Why not rely purely on science? Science is the best and most reliable means to objectively understand existence as it pertains to the universe. Anything else is essentially a thought experiment at best.
Science can only explain the material world and existence encompasses more than the material.
Existence is made up of the natural world. There is no evidence of anything else, including the supernatural.
Thoughts may be describable as a chemical reaction, but they are not experienced as a chemical reaction.
To try and reduce everything to "science" is just silly imo. Why would you even want to do that?
Not sure what that means. Could you give me an example of experiencing a thought?
I'll think about it.
Thought is just a function of the brain. It's essentially just electrochemical interactions between neurons. How one "experiences" something is also a function of the brain (also neuronal communication), regardless of how it's perceived.
And I don't find anything silly about using science. I'm explaining it using science. Why is that silly? Science is the best means of explaining things.
Tell your wife daughter or mother that you love them because of a chemical interaction in your head.
The inhumanity of physics does not mean it is not true. There is no evidence that love is anything other than an emergent property of the physical brain. It might be something else, but so far there is no supporting evidence for an extra-brain hypothesis.
Yes, it is a chemical reaction in the brain. That particular electrochemical reaction is what people describe as love. The same applies to all emotions. Because of science, we know which areas of the brain are responsible for emotion. That's just simple fact and reality. Wanting to pretend there's something more to it than that doesn't change that fact. I'm not sure why that would even be an issue.
Well, good luck with that.
By your reasoning scientific knowledge itself is only brain chemistry. I am not disputing that per se, just saying there is another way of looking at it. A very important other way.
Should we just phase out human beings and have the universe run by machines?
After all, what would be the difference?
You guys are a trip.
Good luck with what exactly?
Knowledge is just information that is learned, processed, retained, and utilized. And yes, its all about the brain. There's nothing magical or mystical or whatever about it. You can "look at it" any way you want. But that's just a matter of perception then, which can be subjective and anecdotal. Science is just the best method for obtaining and utilizing facts and knowledge.
No need to get personal. We simply stated plain facts. Why does that seem to be a problem?
I have no "problem" with anything about this seed.
Perhaps not the seed itself. But Your responses to our replies seem to be showing an increasing amount of irritation or snarkiness.
If everything boiled down to science then all we would see are writings and talks about science.
That is clearly not the case.
Does the chemical reaction cause the thought, or does the thought cause the chemical reaction?
I didn't say everything boiled down to science. Only that science is the best way of obtaining knowledge and understanding, especially where questions about the universe is concerned. That is what this discussion was originally about. Thought is a product of higher cognitive neurological function.
OK.
-
I find a lecture from someone like Watts more interesting that a lecture from an astrophysicist. So I guess we are just different.
I find Stephen Hawking to be quite interesting. I'm currently reading his last book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions." A good and easy read. Watts seems to take a more philosophical approach. But that's makes it more for a thought experiment than actual concrete facts and information.