About book The Book On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are (1989)
Having read this and several other works by Watts while still in high school, I am unsure of a proper rating. At the time he was very influential, but then I knew so little and was so very unhappy.Mother introduced me to Watts and, thus, Eastern philosophies. Actually, they were covered a bit in Freshman Civilization class taught by Kelly Fox and that was intriguing, but Watts was the first actual believer I may have read. Later, not much later, Mike Miley was to introduce me to the real stuff, Sri Aurobindo and the lot, but Mom and Alan Watts got me going. She was probably pretty unhappy too though I didn't know it until word got to me in college that she'd left Dad.Mom and Dad. I often describe Dad as a modern Voltaire, a skeptic, and Mom as one who took literally Paul's injunction to "believe all things." She was Norwegian, a member of the Lutheran Church of Norway, but when her friend the priest would visit we'd have a Catholic Mass sans Dad. When my friends got into talking about Vedanta or Zen or Taoism, she'd eat it up, just as she came to eat up, to my shock, orange double domes. I respected Dad. I thought Mom a bit of a flake. Yet everyone liked Mom, only a select few got close to Dad. Her heart was an expansive one.Watts describes his book as an attack against the notion that we are individual egos in bodies. I have come to accept this position for various reasons. Among them are:-I have memories of being all sorts of creatures. The Erik body and minor variations on that theme are most common, but I wake up every day with the memories of variant Eriks and many others. Some of these others come up time and again in dreams. To these types of memories may be added those of day-dreaming or of other altered states of consciousness. Once, for maybe half an hour, I was a dark-haired Amerindian girl. Since the experience began in the shower, that is a particularly vivid and cherished memory.-Despite these bodily-associated memories, I actually spend most times unaware of the Erik body or of anything associated with it. For instance, when reading, if it's a good book, I'm right there in it. Being aware of the Erik body is often not a good thing. It often means something is wrong.-Other than inferred references to the Erik body and its sense organs and point of reference, my actual experiences are about common things, be they material or ideational. I have no secrets, no private life which isn't predefined by common, public objects. I think, I imagine in terms which either are the lingua franca of everyone or which might easily become so.-I certainly don't have an individual ego. That, upon analysis, is a vanishing point on the horizon, a heurism, a convenience of reference to this Erik body and its habits of behavior. This body certainly isn't individual, but composite, a supercommunity of communities of cells, constantly changing.-The notion of individuality and the weight given it is both culturally and historically contingent. This seems confirmed again and again by my occasional studies in history, anthropology and psychology. The agents in the bible, particularly the Hebrew Bible, are often families, clans and nations, not particular human bodies.Still, despite this considered conviction, I too often fall back into the miserable sense of being precisely that which Watts decries--"a separate ego enclosed in a bag of skin"--especially when things aren't going smoothly. Thus, when people ask, usually thoughtlessly, "How are you?", I, brought by them to self-consciousness, often reply "Depraved". This, my fallenness, is quite irksome.
I came to Watts by reference from a more practical guide of meditation practice. As such, I was really more interested in an exploration of a personal experience of "not-self", or "anatta" as Buddhists refer to it. This may sound somewhat grand and perhaps quixotic, but I sincerely believe that grasping anatta on a more immediate, visceral level of awareness - beyond the conceptual - is really quite possible and achievable for most everyone. In an effort to move beyond the purely conceptual, then - it may seem an odd choice to reach for a book by Alan Watts. The title drew me in though - it seemed to me to promise just the sort of secrets I was hoping to unravel. "The Book" does start off in that vein, but Watts quickly pivots to consider a broader cultural perspective - the different ways of thinking viz East vs West. Watts's understanding of anatta is unquestionably deep, and one cannot help but feel the magnetic pull of this confident, pellucid guide in what is probably foggy and strange terrain for most Westerners. As a meditation practitioner, though, I came to feel ultimately that none of what Watts says here is necessary to experience or understand anatta - indeed it may complicate or even confuse the issue for some. Nonetheless I enjoy Watts and his brand of mind-blowing sophistry for it's sheer entertainment value. I especially liked his portrayal of how we habitually place artificial conceptual nets or grids over reality - obscuring what is naturally more "wiggly" - in order to measure or quantify various aspects. An analytical navigation of our shared universe necessarily requires slicing and dicing - mapping and reducing. Long/Lat lines on a map are a good example. We become so used to them we forget they are artificial- it's like wearing a visor with a HUD and forgetting you are wearing it, which causes you to think that the labels and measurements you see are part of the world around you rather than something you are projecting. This has been more of problem in the West, whereas the East, as Watts points out, was more of a follower to the West in term of building conceptual models of reality in more discrete terms. Advances in understanding of things at the quantum level seem to be bringing us back around again, however ("hey, atoms appear to be made of little wiggly things!"). If, like me, you are interested in a more personal and intimate reflection on not-self, impermanence, and suffering (the three marks of existence, in Buddhist parlance), then I would recommend Breath by Breath by Larry Rosenberg.
Do You like book The Book On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are (1989)?
This book has many quotes and analogies that I continue to use today when explaining my view of the universe and my relation to "God." I've given out at least 8 copies of this book to my friends, with never a bad review. I can't say enough good things about this book.As an aside. Alan Watts is one of the greatest spiritual teachers in my life. The lectures he left prior to his passing affirmed many of the beliefs I held, and extended these beliefs to levels I previously hadn't been able to see. While not all of his books are something I would recommend, but his lectures are absolutely otherworldly.RIP Mr. Watts, you were true visionary.
—Jesse D.
Watts says humans are connected to everything around us so that we and the universe are one. The goal of Eastern thought is to tap into that oceanic feeling and love and harmony will result. This perspective he contrasts with Western thought, which is atomistic and ego-based, leading to competition, domination and conflict. Watts has an interesting writing style. Points and themes fade in and out, like a smooth power point, and he takes the reader along for an almost mesmerizing ride until one thinks about what is being said. Watts uses the biological cell as an anology for our openess to the world, but doesn't say that that openess is selective (it's not "oceanic"), it is strife-ridden (in service of survival), and it is defensive against harm. Elsewhere, he acknowledges the obvious. Conflicts are there after all, but he writes that they are "within bounds" for those who are enlightened because our interdependence is recognized.Watts refers to quantum physics and relativity as if these support his viewpoint. Just as mass is energy, he says that "this relativity, or interpendence, of the two is as close to a metaphysical unity underlying differences as anyone could wish." Yes, and we might suppose that the cosmos is absent of tension between matter and energy and that exploding stars and galaxies are not violent. For those who ask hard questions about his perspective, Watts says that truth is beyond understanding. Questions are off limits, and "no one should use speaking and thinking to find out what cannot be spoken or thought." To bolster that perspective, Watts states that "As Wittgenstein suggested, people who ask such questions may have a disorder of the intellect...." That strikes me as taking some liberties with (the early) Wittgenstein's view of "nonsense." Watts is asserting a truth that Wittgenstein could or would not assert. Watts of course knows that we die and is careful to not suggest we live physically in a heaven. Yet, he brings eternity back by saying that "I return in every baby born." Well, we know that our children live on with pieces of us, but Watts is not talking about genes. He is referring to our selves as an "It" that "will rise again and again, as the 'central' Self," so there is hope after all. The separate ego has no place in Watts' theory. The ego is to be equated with domination of others. That is not accurate. As biological beings, we are egocentric, wanting to survive and enjoy well-being. But a good part of human kind also identifies with the broader community and that identity includes compassion, love, empathy and all of that, as the good of the whole is good for the self. An argument could be made that it is Watts' perspective that is egocentric. While world is filled with real suffering that demands active engagement, Watts wants us to retreat into a quiet corner so we can find ourselves.
—Bob Nichols
This is the sort of book that shows the value of browsing in bookshops. It was not a book I was looking for, but I came across it, was intrigued, bought it and read it. And it was well worth the effort.Watts was obviously very knowledgeable about a wealth of (Western Analytical) philosophy and religious thinking (many types but particularly Eastern). He deftly merges and plays with concepts from the two, to make a pleasurable, thought provoking read. At times quite profound, but always engaging.One caveat - if you are really interested in either philosophy, religion or philosophy of religion there are deeper and better reads. But if you are after a book for self reflection and insight, or a starting point to more deep thinking then this may be it. I did not quite buy all of his arguments, but I think he was onto something. My suggestion - give it a go, you may find you are a different person once you have read it.
—Richard Newton
