The Book, On the Taboo Against Knowing Who you Are

probably because of what other people are saying on here. its been so long since i've read watts, i don't have the book in question,
so if you're right and i'm wrong that's good. i only know that what is not known is not known, and people telling each other what to pretend about what is not known,
is people telling each other what to pretend. nothing to stop there from being whatever there wants to be. as for the self, it is simply a point from which to observe.

 

I'd say that if anyone really knows, they have no way of knowing that they really know. I'm not sure what being a practicing Christian has to do with knowing anything. I think of God as Wakan Tanka (Great Mystery), and rely on faith (educated bet) to deal with the big questions. Nothing is certain, not even that.

 

So far, so good. Hume and John Locke would be proud.Seventeenth century empiricism in action.

​

We simply don't know what the object "in itself" might be or might be like.(Kant taught us we can never know that, except through our perceptions and a priori "categories'". It's the "vibratiions'" that are translated into our perception of the butterfly. The butterfly might not look anything like how I perceive it, or look like anything at all. I'm reasonably confident though, that there is a butterfly, and that science can reliably tell us lots of reliable things about it. Hence your diagram. Interestingly, the vibrations which we perceive as "butterfly" must be relatively constant in order for us to have such a concept. When the collection of changing vibrations I call "Buddy" jumps onto my lap and gives me a wet kiss, I'm aware the he may not really look like the tan chihuahua of my perceptions, and may not be exactly the same as he was a few minutes ago. With his superior senses of smell and hearing, I'm sure he senses things about me I could never be aware of. there is enough continuity to him that we can relate to each other.

Probably not, for reasons explained supra. It simply means that our perceptions of them don't necessarily conform to their intrinsic objective reality. When I engage in dialogue with you, I'm reasonably confident that you exist, have a brain and body, etc., and that what you see as the sky, the earth, the computer, etc., is pretty much what I see. That's a big assumption. You could be green and scaly with two heads, whether you know it or not. Or more likely, are a collection of swirling waves and particles. I also assume that the Meagain " in itself" has no intrinsic color, touch, taste, sound and smell, and that my and your construct of Meagain is a matter of our perceptions, which may not be the same but seem to be congruent. This enables us to navigate our way through what we call reality. Whoever drew that diagram you provided seems to have a view of humans and butterflies that's similar to mine, and the same idea of how our perception of them operates. The existence of the butterfly is an inference, but one that's reasonable to make. At least there's a strong consensus behind it, and making the assumption helps me get through life without stepping on butterflies

 

On that, I agree--with emphasis on the "fully". But if they're "semi-static", it gives us something to go on. I've had four kids by a semi-static vibration I call "honey", and we enjoy vibrating together semi-statically. Good enough for me!

 

If everyone is just guessing, that IS ultimate reality.

 

In other words, the environment, by definition, marks the boundary between us and it?

All true, and should be obvious to everyone. Nobody is an island.

Here, I think, he's gone off the deep end. This is a metaphysical statement that would be impossible to verify or refute, and is semantically ambiguous at that.. In what sense does an organism "evoke" knowledge of a past before it began? "Evoke": to call forth or up: such as...to bring to mind or recollection." So what does this sentence convey. That every organism makes us think of the past and future? More likely, that every organism contains within it elements and influence of ancestors and descendants. This is obviously, and trivially, true of genes. But many scientists and philosophers would disagree that "the universe would not have started, or manifested itself, unless it was at some time going to include organisms." That is saying that life was inevitable, which is controversial among scientists and philosophers and needs lots of supporting evidence--not just a casual remark as though it were intuitively obvious. The metaphor "current will not begin to flow from the positive end of a wire until the negative terminal is secure" is downright mystical, suggesting that the universe was set up to provide a "flow" of "current" from one end to the other. How did it get set up for that purpose, or are we not supposed to ask that question?

. Agree, relatively speaking.

Disagree. "Things" are entities that don't have to be that solid (e.g., your semi-static collection of vibrations--e.g.,the dog. The part about "operative in pure principle" is metaphysical, and sounds like warmed-over Plato. Buckminster Fuller was a genius, but not infallible.

 

"so too the environment defines the organism it contains". But there is no boundary? "Environment", by definition, is surroundings. Surroundings of what? And how could the environment "define" and organism without being distinct from it?

Again "evokes". Evokes for whom or what? The organism? Yes, we inherit genes from the past and there is a biological drive to pass them on. The term "organism" however denotes "a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole." The parts are interdependent, but they function to further the survival and development of the organism, governed by a brain and central nervous system--i.e., the self. I am not connected to your nervous system, nor my great grandpappies, nor my kids, nor my unborn grandkids. The "evocation" you describe is vague and remote.

He can claim anything he wants, but to my knowledge, consciousness has never been encountered apart form matter. Consciousness as we know it is not matter, but it sure seems to depend on a material brain.

 

This calls to mind a review of one of paleontologist Fr.Pierre Tielhard de Chardin's books by evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who notes the propensity of mystics to vibrate. He found a page in Tielhard's book where author did just that. Betcha Elizabet Sahtouris vibrates too. Gould sees no evidence of Chardin's noosphere. That of course hasn't stopped his devotees from believing in one. The materialist view of evolution has its drawbacks, but it seems to be better grounded in empirical reality than New Age alternatives.

 

Put that way, I basically agree. Except the fact that we, like the cell, have boundaries and are organisms whose nervous systems are not connected and have separate brains creates an important barrier. We're definitely all in this together--spaceship earth and all that--but people have to be taught to look beyond their own bodies or find out the consequences the hard way. Empathy is real but only goes so far. Obviously, Buddhists have to learn non-self. Some say that if he lesson is learned, the practitioner will have attained nirvana.

I think of the whole organism, brain, nervous system, heart, lungs, and the rest as the self, but the most important part is the electro-mechanical apparatus, that is enabling me to carry on this discourse.

How would you propose to do that? Call me names and see how I respond.?

How are they connected?