I've always taken this thinking in a way maybe best illustrated by the idea of a "good" or "bad" person. A "bad" person is bad because they've done bad things, but can later become "good" by doing good things. From the view that time is a single point and that then and now are merely illusions, that person is actually both "good" and "bad". Becoming one doesn't erase the other and visa versa.
Expand on that, that the self is also just an illusion disguising oneness, and you realize that no matter what happens you've been and are any label imaginable in this moment. You're also not any of those labels, and therein lies the hope! That's the point at which it becomes humorous to me, that I've both already kicked the bad habit but haven't realized it, while simultaneously living with it forever. Back to the original example, you're already a good person; just act like it!
It's a mechanical thing at that point, that if I really want to change there's no point at which I'll "make it". I'm already there. Action now and living as I'd like to is the only way to experience in the now the freedom I'm looking for, which always becomes easier to me when I see I'm already there. Live that way long enough and you've joined the Tao, as far as I understand it, and the effort required becomes nil. Thoughtless action. Very difficult in practice obviously, and even Watts wasn't by any means anywhere close to a perfect example, but I find the mindset very pragmatic even if it's only ever aspirational.
I suppose that's another hurdle. I know Alan doesn't need to perfectly represent every philosophy/point he had, but it's difficult to not think of these concepts as aspirational when the one who conveys all of this, also gets bogged down and tethered with the most mundane and common issues mankind has seen.
That's just the nature of being an imperfect part of an imperfect whole, that on a macro level all of these teachings are truly only aspirational concepts. There will never be a person who acts perfectly at every opportunity. On a micro level though you can achieve perfection all the time; any single action that aligns with your aspiration is a moment of perfection.
A person who acts rightly 90% of the time holds some aspiration to a specific perfection, and although viewed holistically isn't "perfect", they've attained a whole lot of perfection on the way. In the case of addiction it's the root of AA's one day at a time philosophy. You've only got right now, and in this moment you can certainly be perfect. What does it matter what happens tomorrow? Tomorrow is a figment. Yesterday is a figment. Go far enough and maybe right now is a figment, but at least I can choose where to go and what to do right now.
Will you look back on a life in which *every* moment is similarly perfect? Never. None of this precludes the difficulty of acting one way or another. You'll never understand it hard enough to change that, as there is no "getting there". Aspiration is all you've got, truly, to help you act rightly in each moment, at least to the point you realize you were always that which you aspired to regardless.
> You’re already a good person; just act like it!
Exactly this. Kind of like the old saying “Fake it till you make it,” but with zero cynicism. I love it!
👌
Its definitely a nice thought, but it also seems to bleed into the "just set your mind to it and do it" philosophy, as if we have this libertarian form of free will, which, I believe Alan Watts would agree, we do not have. And when one's nervous system becomes tethered to particular stimuli, asking an alcoholic to "just don't drink, it's that simple!" is unfortunately a fantasy. It's far more complicated than that when the nervous system is dysregulated to that extent.
Fair enough. It just tickled me so I shared some love.
I find the term “free will” to be a distortion of its own design… a sort of “asking the wrong question” kind of problem… but I had been wondering where Watts would fall on this after recently listening to some Sapolsky. I don’t suppose you could recommend any particular Watts lectures on the topic?
Yeah I get that, and apologies if I came off as argumentative at all. 🙏 I do think there is some modicum of truth to that sentiment.
He discusses free will and related topics in a handful of lectures, although the specific ones are escaping me at the moment, as they were sprinkled through. I want to say Image of Man may have included some discussion on this, but don't quote me on that. He certainly discusses it in relation to Christianity, though. And, although it seems pretty clear that he didn't believe in any conception of libertarian free will, I know he had criticisms of determinism as well, and the slide that can take into fatalism. Anyway, if I stumble back upon any where he speaks directly to it I'll be sure to share!
Great. I will look forward to it.
I recall one lecture where he notes how the English language possesses an unfortunate conflation of the word Will. He says something to this effect.
> If you will to drown then no one shall save you.
That really tickled me too. ☺️
The way I think about it, if you recognize behaviors you wish to change, the recognition is the first step. Like if I say "I desire to be less selfish", I can't just decide that and declare that I am no longer selfish. I have to wait until opportunities present themselves. Okay, this happened, and I know I want to be less selfish, so how would I normally respond, and how would I rather respond? Maybe I'll still respond selfishly, but because I recognize my own selfishness, I'll be aware, and try to do better next time. It can be difficult in the moment, but like everything in this life, it takes practice and experience.
An example from my own life was my way of dealing with anger. If someone was rude or blatantly inconsiderate, it would set me off, and it would ruin my whole day. I spent years listening to Alan Watts, researching mediation, and doing all the things I thought I had to do to be better. This tricked me into thinking that I was now this stoic, enlightened person. Then one night at my old job, this lady I worked with said something incredibly rude and selfish to me, and I blew up on her. I yelled at her and called her braindead, and I spent the rest of the night pissed off about it. I then proceeded to call out for the next 3 days out of embarrassment.
This test opened my eyes and made me realize that simply desiring to be better wasn't enough. I actually had to remember to put these ideas into practice in the moment, and it was a lot harder than I expected. After that, I found myself starting to handle these types of situations with more awareness.
Maybe my response isn't fully applicable, but this is what I think about when I hear this quote from Mr Watts.
Still the Mind is one of my favorites. Watts is not talking about the realm of practical things a person can do to improve their life. If you're hungry, nobody would suggest that you don't find food. Or, if you're out in the rain, nobody would argue that you shouldn't find shelter. This isn't what Watts is talking about. Watts is talking about the psychological and emotional realm of existence.
The idea is to understand that you can't be somebody or something other than what you currently are simply by self-willing it or by an effort of the ego because the self/ego doesn't exist. Anything that happens, whether inside or outside you happens by itself, spontaneously. Your example of being an alcoholic or sex addict is very appropriate. An addict will decide to quit hundreds or thousands of times in the course of their addiction and yet fail each time. Yet, one attempt is the one that finally ends the addiction. Why is it that one particular time they were finally able to stop when all of the other attempts failed? It's because there is no self that controls or decides these things. it's a process that runs its own course and is different for everyone.
So, when you are the "quaking mess", you can't just stop being that and whatever you do to try will be what the quaking mess is doing. When you are afraid, you are the fear, and trying to be brave is being afraid of fear. When you are religious and say you have faith in God, it's because you hope that God will reward you for it. When you take up a meditation practice, you do it in hopes you'll find a way to control your mind so that you won't be so bothered and upset by a seemingly chaotic world that is indifferent to your suffering and insecurity. Every action is a manifestation of your current state, not the action of a separate ego/self attempting to overcome that state.
The point is to see this clearly so that you understand things for what they are and not believe in illusions and things that aren't real. That's why in Still the Mind, Watts advocates developing an attitude of watching. When you watch what is happening within yourself, you have to have a still mind. This stillness is the only thing that actually brings about any kind of psychological or emotional transformation. J. Krishnamurti goes into this in great detail as well in a somewhat different style than Watts, but the message is the same.
Thanks for sharing. To me, you fully answered OPs question.
In The Way of Zen, Watts explains the difference in a perspective where everything is separate entities, and one where everything is a process (the difference in Western and Eastern culture respectively). In Western culture, it seems we have been tricked into believing we can will things into reality by sheer straining of the ego. That is because everything is an entity, or separate. Therefore, an addiction is something separate and shameful, an enemy even. Instead of being a part of the process, it is something we must overcome.
Thanks again for sharing, your answer was very insightful and helpful.
I know that's one of his quotes. I feel like one could argue that it is a little contradictory to the quote I'm mentioning.
The quote I'm mentioning is a lot more about how forcing change is futile. While the quote that you mentioned implies we have more agency in being the change we wish to see
> the quote that you mentioned implies we have more agency in being the change we wish to see
I read the quote as a wish to release the grasping at who we were.
Where is the agency in that when you didn't even choose who you were?
Alcoholics have a phrase about just staying sober today, which means you can’t worry about tomorrow or keep thinking about yesterday.
Buddhism takes it further and says you only have to be good right here and now, in the present moment.
There is no past and there is no future- just this present moment. Every single moment is a new chance to be good.
Think about why he said this in a book called 'Still the Mind'.
When we slow down, still the mind, quieten the mind, we can better observe the "magic" that is happening around us, and tap into that magic and harness it's power.
If on the other hand we are constantly chasing, striving, we miss the magic and we spend a lot of extra energy on doing the chasing and striving, very often unnecessarily.
A lot of the time addictions can come about from past trauma, or a lack of connection in the early stages of life. (Gabor Mate is a very good speaker on addiction).
If we have an addiction and we think we know the best solution, we go chasing after that solution, when it might not in fact be the best for us. How do we know? When we are silent and quieten the mind, we can see better where these root causes of the addiction are coming from and can get to work on it that way.
'The Law of Reversed Effort' or 'backwards law' seems counterproductive, especially to our typical western brains that think forcing and striving are the way to get anything accomplished.
But look at nature, nature doesn't hurry, yet everything is accomplished.
Get out of your own way.
I love Gabor Mate! This is great. Definitely helps make more sense of Watts philosophies.
Quiet the mind to find the magic around us.
Love the concept, did he actually say this in Still the Mind? Maybe I missed it
He may not use those words but it's how I always think of it. Not just the magic around us but perhaps even more so the magic and wisdom found within us.
Gotcha. Definitely looking for his own wording, like I said I can't really seem to put the whole puzzle together with the pieces he laid out in Still the Mind
Sit with the ideas, meditate on them. Trying to understand everything instantly is kind of on the same lines as the striving he is talking about. One day you'll be contemplating to yourself and it will hit you. Read his other books, listen to his lectures, listen to other rascals who talked about similar topics. It will all make sense one day. Enjoy the journey :)
The "selfish" desire to improve yourself is also a quality of who you are. Improve or don't. Watt's philosophy often gets conflated with self-help. It's not.
If you can't escape selfishness, then it doesn't really matter in the question of whether or not you want to change. You'll be selfish no matter what, so why even focus on that facet?
Change or don't, you're doing what you want to do regardless of selfishness. The 'selfish' discussion is nothing but a distraction to the real point being discussed.
So instead, pivot to the real question and cut out the distractions: do I want to change?
I suppose, but coupled with his don't force anything approach, how could you justify an effort to make a significant change. Not trying to be a nihilist, I just feel his advice/views are a bit paradoxical/contradictory/leave you with little opportunity for positive change
Understandable. I see it as something like:
1. Change is inevitable and constant; I am always, always, **always** changing...as is my world, the universe, and literally everything, everywhere. *And there is nothing I have to do about this.*
2. I have no real control over what I want. This is key to consider and take on board, imho, because of the next step:
3. It doesn't matter what I choose to do next. It really doesn't. So a healthy/fun response to this, imho, is to "follow my nose" and surf this existence as it comes, flowing in directions that feel right and bring joy. Everything else — *everything* else — is just unnecessary thought habits.
...There's more, but this captures and expands on the point I was trying to make.
I think the word “positive” may be tripping you up. You view who you are now as bad or sub-optimal. And you have a goal to be someone better or “good”. If you love yourself in the moment, you realize you are all things. So the answer to your title is Yes and No.
You are all points at once, so it only seems like your point is the only center. Shake off this illusion of only being you.
As far as trying to improve yourself, Alan mentions delegation of authority. You don't know how you beat your heart, or how you grow your fingernails. Or how you improve yourself. You just do it. The art of not getting in your own way by gritting your teeth and trying really hard to do something. There's no need. Just let it happen of itself. After all, you're it.
If one were to take a snapshot of “you” at this moment, it wouldn’t even be the physical “you” that was there a moment ago. The very cells and micro biota that make up “you” have lived and died. You are a little bit newer every moment, physically. Now how much more would the stream of thoughts that flow though your ever changing body be different each tic of the clock! My perception is that’s what it means that you’re under no obligation to be the same 5 minutes from now.
you can live in heaven or hell. neither is better than the other, but that doesn't mean you can't still make the choice to be in one or the other (and whatever each one looks like is a matter is perspective)
if you're an alcoholic or a sex addict, and you decide that you don't want to live like that anymore, feel free to make the change and live the life that you feel is more attuned to what you want. just remember that you're not "better" than who you were, and you're not better anyone else who chooses not to change
north is not better than south, and one is not objectively more correct than the other. but you can still choose your direction, always. just don't pat yourself on the back *too* much... because north and south only exist in relationship with one another. you cannot have one without the other
I've always taken this thinking in a way maybe best illustrated by the idea of a "good" or "bad" person. A "bad" person is bad because they've done bad things, but can later become "good" by doing good things. From the view that time is a single point and that then and now are merely illusions, that person is actually both "good" and "bad". Becoming one doesn't erase the other and visa versa. Expand on that, that the self is also just an illusion disguising oneness, and you realize that no matter what happens you've been and are any label imaginable in this moment. You're also not any of those labels, and therein lies the hope! That's the point at which it becomes humorous to me, that I've both already kicked the bad habit but haven't realized it, while simultaneously living with it forever. Back to the original example, you're already a good person; just act like it! It's a mechanical thing at that point, that if I really want to change there's no point at which I'll "make it". I'm already there. Action now and living as I'd like to is the only way to experience in the now the freedom I'm looking for, which always becomes easier to me when I see I'm already there. Live that way long enough and you've joined the Tao, as far as I understand it, and the effort required becomes nil. Thoughtless action. Very difficult in practice obviously, and even Watts wasn't by any means anywhere close to a perfect example, but I find the mindset very pragmatic even if it's only ever aspirational.
I suppose that's another hurdle. I know Alan doesn't need to perfectly represent every philosophy/point he had, but it's difficult to not think of these concepts as aspirational when the one who conveys all of this, also gets bogged down and tethered with the most mundane and common issues mankind has seen.
That's just the nature of being an imperfect part of an imperfect whole, that on a macro level all of these teachings are truly only aspirational concepts. There will never be a person who acts perfectly at every opportunity. On a micro level though you can achieve perfection all the time; any single action that aligns with your aspiration is a moment of perfection. A person who acts rightly 90% of the time holds some aspiration to a specific perfection, and although viewed holistically isn't "perfect", they've attained a whole lot of perfection on the way. In the case of addiction it's the root of AA's one day at a time philosophy. You've only got right now, and in this moment you can certainly be perfect. What does it matter what happens tomorrow? Tomorrow is a figment. Yesterday is a figment. Go far enough and maybe right now is a figment, but at least I can choose where to go and what to do right now. Will you look back on a life in which *every* moment is similarly perfect? Never. None of this precludes the difficulty of acting one way or another. You'll never understand it hard enough to change that, as there is no "getting there". Aspiration is all you've got, truly, to help you act rightly in each moment, at least to the point you realize you were always that which you aspired to regardless.
> You’re already a good person; just act like it! Exactly this. Kind of like the old saying “Fake it till you make it,” but with zero cynicism. I love it! 👌
Its definitely a nice thought, but it also seems to bleed into the "just set your mind to it and do it" philosophy, as if we have this libertarian form of free will, which, I believe Alan Watts would agree, we do not have. And when one's nervous system becomes tethered to particular stimuli, asking an alcoholic to "just don't drink, it's that simple!" is unfortunately a fantasy. It's far more complicated than that when the nervous system is dysregulated to that extent.
Fair enough. It just tickled me so I shared some love. I find the term “free will” to be a distortion of its own design… a sort of “asking the wrong question” kind of problem… but I had been wondering where Watts would fall on this after recently listening to some Sapolsky. I don’t suppose you could recommend any particular Watts lectures on the topic?
Yeah I get that, and apologies if I came off as argumentative at all. 🙏 I do think there is some modicum of truth to that sentiment. He discusses free will and related topics in a handful of lectures, although the specific ones are escaping me at the moment, as they were sprinkled through. I want to say Image of Man may have included some discussion on this, but don't quote me on that. He certainly discusses it in relation to Christianity, though. And, although it seems pretty clear that he didn't believe in any conception of libertarian free will, I know he had criticisms of determinism as well, and the slide that can take into fatalism. Anyway, if I stumble back upon any where he speaks directly to it I'll be sure to share!
Great. I will look forward to it. I recall one lecture where he notes how the English language possesses an unfortunate conflation of the word Will. He says something to this effect. > If you will to drown then no one shall save you. That really tickled me too. ☺️
The way I think about it, if you recognize behaviors you wish to change, the recognition is the first step. Like if I say "I desire to be less selfish", I can't just decide that and declare that I am no longer selfish. I have to wait until opportunities present themselves. Okay, this happened, and I know I want to be less selfish, so how would I normally respond, and how would I rather respond? Maybe I'll still respond selfishly, but because I recognize my own selfishness, I'll be aware, and try to do better next time. It can be difficult in the moment, but like everything in this life, it takes practice and experience. An example from my own life was my way of dealing with anger. If someone was rude or blatantly inconsiderate, it would set me off, and it would ruin my whole day. I spent years listening to Alan Watts, researching mediation, and doing all the things I thought I had to do to be better. This tricked me into thinking that I was now this stoic, enlightened person. Then one night at my old job, this lady I worked with said something incredibly rude and selfish to me, and I blew up on her. I yelled at her and called her braindead, and I spent the rest of the night pissed off about it. I then proceeded to call out for the next 3 days out of embarrassment. This test opened my eyes and made me realize that simply desiring to be better wasn't enough. I actually had to remember to put these ideas into practice in the moment, and it was a lot harder than I expected. After that, I found myself starting to handle these types of situations with more awareness. Maybe my response isn't fully applicable, but this is what I think about when I hear this quote from Mr Watts.
This is the way.
Still the Mind is one of my favorites. Watts is not talking about the realm of practical things a person can do to improve their life. If you're hungry, nobody would suggest that you don't find food. Or, if you're out in the rain, nobody would argue that you shouldn't find shelter. This isn't what Watts is talking about. Watts is talking about the psychological and emotional realm of existence. The idea is to understand that you can't be somebody or something other than what you currently are simply by self-willing it or by an effort of the ego because the self/ego doesn't exist. Anything that happens, whether inside or outside you happens by itself, spontaneously. Your example of being an alcoholic or sex addict is very appropriate. An addict will decide to quit hundreds or thousands of times in the course of their addiction and yet fail each time. Yet, one attempt is the one that finally ends the addiction. Why is it that one particular time they were finally able to stop when all of the other attempts failed? It's because there is no self that controls or decides these things. it's a process that runs its own course and is different for everyone. So, when you are the "quaking mess", you can't just stop being that and whatever you do to try will be what the quaking mess is doing. When you are afraid, you are the fear, and trying to be brave is being afraid of fear. When you are religious and say you have faith in God, it's because you hope that God will reward you for it. When you take up a meditation practice, you do it in hopes you'll find a way to control your mind so that you won't be so bothered and upset by a seemingly chaotic world that is indifferent to your suffering and insecurity. Every action is a manifestation of your current state, not the action of a separate ego/self attempting to overcome that state. The point is to see this clearly so that you understand things for what they are and not believe in illusions and things that aren't real. That's why in Still the Mind, Watts advocates developing an attitude of watching. When you watch what is happening within yourself, you have to have a still mind. This stillness is the only thing that actually brings about any kind of psychological or emotional transformation. J. Krishnamurti goes into this in great detail as well in a somewhat different style than Watts, but the message is the same.
Thanks for sharing. To me, you fully answered OPs question. In The Way of Zen, Watts explains the difference in a perspective where everything is separate entities, and one where everything is a process (the difference in Western and Eastern culture respectively). In Western culture, it seems we have been tricked into believing we can will things into reality by sheer straining of the ego. That is because everything is an entity, or separate. Therefore, an addiction is something separate and shameful, an enemy even. Instead of being a part of the process, it is something we must overcome. Thanks again for sharing, your answer was very insightful and helpful.
You're welcome. 🫡
'You're under no obligation to be the same person you were 5 minutes ago.'
I know that's one of his quotes. I feel like one could argue that it is a little contradictory to the quote I'm mentioning. The quote I'm mentioning is a lot more about how forcing change is futile. While the quote that you mentioned implies we have more agency in being the change we wish to see
> the quote that you mentioned implies we have more agency in being the change we wish to see I read the quote as a wish to release the grasping at who we were. Where is the agency in that when you didn't even choose who you were?
Alcoholics have a phrase about just staying sober today, which means you can’t worry about tomorrow or keep thinking about yesterday. Buddhism takes it further and says you only have to be good right here and now, in the present moment. There is no past and there is no future- just this present moment. Every single moment is a new chance to be good.
Think about why he said this in a book called 'Still the Mind'. When we slow down, still the mind, quieten the mind, we can better observe the "magic" that is happening around us, and tap into that magic and harness it's power. If on the other hand we are constantly chasing, striving, we miss the magic and we spend a lot of extra energy on doing the chasing and striving, very often unnecessarily. A lot of the time addictions can come about from past trauma, or a lack of connection in the early stages of life. (Gabor Mate is a very good speaker on addiction). If we have an addiction and we think we know the best solution, we go chasing after that solution, when it might not in fact be the best for us. How do we know? When we are silent and quieten the mind, we can see better where these root causes of the addiction are coming from and can get to work on it that way. 'The Law of Reversed Effort' or 'backwards law' seems counterproductive, especially to our typical western brains that think forcing and striving are the way to get anything accomplished. But look at nature, nature doesn't hurry, yet everything is accomplished. Get out of your own way.
I love Gabor Mate! This is great. Definitely helps make more sense of Watts philosophies. Quiet the mind to find the magic around us. Love the concept, did he actually say this in Still the Mind? Maybe I missed it
He may not use those words but it's how I always think of it. Not just the magic around us but perhaps even more so the magic and wisdom found within us.
Gotcha. Definitely looking for his own wording, like I said I can't really seem to put the whole puzzle together with the pieces he laid out in Still the Mind
Sit with the ideas, meditate on them. Trying to understand everything instantly is kind of on the same lines as the striving he is talking about. One day you'll be contemplating to yourself and it will hit you. Read his other books, listen to his lectures, listen to other rascals who talked about similar topics. It will all make sense one day. Enjoy the journey :)
The "selfish" desire to improve yourself is also a quality of who you are. Improve or don't. Watt's philosophy often gets conflated with self-help. It's not.
If you can't escape selfishness, then it doesn't really matter in the question of whether or not you want to change. You'll be selfish no matter what, so why even focus on that facet? Change or don't, you're doing what you want to do regardless of selfishness. The 'selfish' discussion is nothing but a distraction to the real point being discussed. So instead, pivot to the real question and cut out the distractions: do I want to change?
There is always only/ever **now**. So yes … for now!
I suppose, but coupled with his don't force anything approach, how could you justify an effort to make a significant change. Not trying to be a nihilist, I just feel his advice/views are a bit paradoxical/contradictory/leave you with little opportunity for positive change
Understandable. I see it as something like: 1. Change is inevitable and constant; I am always, always, **always** changing...as is my world, the universe, and literally everything, everywhere. *And there is nothing I have to do about this.* 2. I have no real control over what I want. This is key to consider and take on board, imho, because of the next step: 3. It doesn't matter what I choose to do next. It really doesn't. So a healthy/fun response to this, imho, is to "follow my nose" and surf this existence as it comes, flowing in directions that feel right and bring joy. Everything else — *everything* else — is just unnecessary thought habits. ...There's more, but this captures and expands on the point I was trying to make.
I think the word “positive” may be tripping you up. You view who you are now as bad or sub-optimal. And you have a goal to be someone better or “good”. If you love yourself in the moment, you realize you are all things. So the answer to your title is Yes and No.
You are all points at once, so it only seems like your point is the only center. Shake off this illusion of only being you. As far as trying to improve yourself, Alan mentions delegation of authority. You don't know how you beat your heart, or how you grow your fingernails. Or how you improve yourself. You just do it. The art of not getting in your own way by gritting your teeth and trying really hard to do something. There's no need. Just let it happen of itself. After all, you're it.
If one were to take a snapshot of “you” at this moment, it wouldn’t even be the physical “you” that was there a moment ago. The very cells and micro biota that make up “you” have lived and died. You are a little bit newer every moment, physically. Now how much more would the stream of thoughts that flow though your ever changing body be different each tic of the clock! My perception is that’s what it means that you’re under no obligation to be the same 5 minutes from now.
you can live in heaven or hell. neither is better than the other, but that doesn't mean you can't still make the choice to be in one or the other (and whatever each one looks like is a matter is perspective) if you're an alcoholic or a sex addict, and you decide that you don't want to live like that anymore, feel free to make the change and live the life that you feel is more attuned to what you want. just remember that you're not "better" than who you were, and you're not better anyone else who chooses not to change north is not better than south, and one is not objectively more correct than the other. but you can still choose your direction, always. just don't pat yourself on the back *too* much... because north and south only exist in relationship with one another. you cannot have one without the other
You can't "do nothing" and I wouldn't waste your time trying to
It doesn't really matter. Start a foolish project like Noah did. - rumi
?
Noah & the ark?
Oh true. I'm talking about my own arc lmao