The Book by Alan Watts – Three: How to be a Genuine Fake
Personal Summary & Thoughts
Differentiation isn't separation
Our thoughts are part of the single I , or put another way — neurons are real and thoughts are part of everyone reality.
Our thoughts and actions aren't 'ours'. They are a byproduct of environment, linage, and just everything.
Cherishing the ego is cherishing suffering.
Detailed Chapter Notes
The self that is a bag of skin is a hoax and a fake.
Because nothing can truly be separated, only differentiated, the only true I is the all.
The accrual of memories is an essential re-enforcement of the ego.
neurons store memory and are present in the all ( part of your world and mine ) making memories part of the physical , true I and moving along with it. Not something that is persistent outside of reality.
Many qualities of the true self only exist in relation to the brain ( i.e. color sound )
The physical neurons that exist as part of the whole build meaning and value but aren't separate.
–“They [reality , the world] wiggle[s] so much and in so many different ways that no one can really make out where one wiggle begins and another ends, whether in space or in time.”
I really enjoyed this quote, it is fun to think about.
–“Problems that remain persistently insoluble should always be suspected as questions asked in the wrong way, like the problem of cause and effect. Make a spurious division of one process into two, forget that you have done it, and then puzzle for centuries as to how the two get together. So with “form” and “matter.”
This quote is really hard for me to 'believe'. I can see the shapes of the argument but it is so scaring to conceptualize a reality where there aren't separations of things like cause and effect.
I also don't know how useful this type of knowledge is. It seems much more practical in achieving happiness to realize cause and effect as a complex process that is trying to make sense of the differentiation of the greater all
In the later portion of the chapter the author offers a lots of veiled criticism of physicist & scientist in general — jibes at naturalist, etc. I am not saying that the author is wrong ; however, he has definitely not provided ample logical or evidence proof that the “automated” universe is wrong.
In a lot of ways I feel like he is presenting a straw man argument of the automated universe and alternative view or presentation of it could fit in line with some Buddhist thinking.
I feel that the author is committing some of the faults he mentioned in previous chapters , reality isn't black and white, there isn't one clean answer always. In this case the self could have temporary or persistent differentiating characteristics that drive clusters and behaviors with in reality. These clustering characteristics could be viewed and understand as an 'automated' behavior. I don't think that just because someone accepts that there isn't a self or that nothing is permanent that we have to give up on understanding the behaviors of the self around us.
–” If, then, the definition of a thing or event must include definition of its environment, we realize that any given thing goes with a given environment so intimately and inseparably that it is more difficult to draw a clear boundary between the thing and its surroundings.”
I think this is a very useful thought and perhaps my previous notes are too critical of the authors critic of science. Recognizing that we understand things through layers of abstractions and that processes that help us predict things in a generalized fashion may generalize well but they don't represent the actual field of reality that is driving the present moment.
Recognizing and appreciating the shear immensity of the present moment and the impact that all of reality has on each event can be very productive and keeps us from thinking that simple formulas are encompassing everything. Some formulas are better than others but the greatest formula is all of reality.
But, also — I love formulas :)
We like to think about our thoughts & actions as 'ours' but in reality they are a byproduct of all reality and the actions & events and linage that precede us.
Society lies to us and uses double-bind games to trick us into compliance with the great illusion.
Death and disease are a part of reality and we should treat them as such.
I struggled with this section. It feels like the author is saying that we shouldn't try and eliminate illnesses.
I can see the value in not deluding ourselves into thinking that we wont ever suffer or die; however , that doesn't mean we shouldn't work toward improvements.