Alan Watts on "Ex nihilo nihil fit"

[godnotgod]

The following is an interesting excerpt from a lecture by Alan Watts:


Ex nihilo nihil fit?

"If space is essential to solid it's perfectly obvious then that nothing is essential to something. If you can't have something without nothing it means nothing is pretty powerful stuff, because something comes out of it, blpppp, like that. It's a dogma of Western thought expressed in the Latin phrase "ex nihilo nihil fit," "out of nothing comes nothing." But that's not so! Out of nothing comes something!! Now you would say, "Well if something comes out of nothing there must be some kind of mystery inside nothing, it must have a secret structure of some kind. I mean, there must be sort of electrical goings-on." That's the trouble they have about cosmology. How could this world generate, could it just be out of free-floating hydrogen? No, it's a much simpler idea than that: it comes out of real, solid nothing. It's so simple! Look, if you listen, and you live in a world where there's only sound for a moment, you'll hear every sound coming out of silence. Where do these sounds come from? They come out of silence. Suddenly...BOING! And you can accustom yourself to seeing light doing the same thing. You can open your eyes and see all this world emerging out of nothing, BOING!...like that, and fading off into the past. And that's why the future is unknown because the future is zero...."

An expanded discussion by Alan Watts on the topic above can be found here:



http://www.wayneholland.org/nothingness.htm




More of his lecture and essay material in text, audio, and video formats can be found here:


Alan Watts Lectures and Essays






"Prophecy is the contamination of the future with the past."
Alan Watts

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Just one point. The sound idea is just false. The sounds are already there. We just weren't listening. So it wasn't nothing, but rather lack of attention. That is far different than all matter literally not existing, and then coming into existence.

In other words the moon at one point was not there, whether anyone was there to view it or not, it wouldn't be there. The sounds that this author mentions were actually there, so it is a false comparison.

Not really impressed so far...

 

[Smoke]

I love Alan Watts, but sometimes I think he did more drugs than he should have.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's fascinating how many philosophies rely on ignoring basic logic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's fascinating how many philosophies rely on ignoring basic logic.

Yeah, I'm thinking that this is more rhetoric than philosophy.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yeah, I'm thinking that this is more rhetoric than philosophy.

Ha - I actually meant to put philosophies in quotes, then was too lazy to go back after I realized that I didn't.

 

[godnotgod]

Just one point. The sound idea is just false. The sounds are already there. We just weren't listening. So it wasn't nothing, but rather lack of attention. That is far different than all matter literally not existing, and then coming into existence.

In other words the moon at one point was not there, whether anyone was there to view it or not, it wouldn't be there. The sounds that this author mentions were actually there, so it is a false comparison.

Not really impressed so far...

Impressing anyone is never the point.

Sound exists only in the present moment, in the exact moment in which it occurs. Where do you see that it was "already there"? Watts said that sound comes out of silence. Silence is the ground; sound is the field. Silence is nothing in terms of sound.

Neither moon nor sound fundamentally exist, nor do they continue on in eternity. They are temporary differentiated manifestations of energy and form of the undifferentiated state.

Notice he never stated anything about existence and non-existence, which imply static states. He said that something comes out of nothing, which implies a dynamic state. Existence and non-existence are only concepts.

Again, what he stated was: "If space is essential to solid it's perfectly obvious then that nothing is essential to something"

 

[godnotgod]

I love Alan Watts, but sometimes I think he did more drugs than he should have.

Does that have any bearing on the validity of his statement concerning ex nihilo nihil fit?

Besides, how do you know how much drugs he did?

 

[godnotgod]

It's fascinating how many philosophies rely on ignoring basic logic.

Is the universe itself a "logical" entity? Did it come into being via of logical thought?

Are there completely valid views of reality that are not logical in terms of the rational mind, and yet which are actually more logical in a higher sense?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It's fascinating how many philosophies rely on ignoring basic logic.

Is this lecture illogical?

Reality is a psychological event: things exist because we define--insertion of gaps (space) through filtering and sensory discrimination. Before being divided into things, when there is no consciousness to measure and divide, what is there but no thing?

 

[godnotgod]

Yeah, I'm thinking that this is more rhetoric than philosophy.

In a sense, it is somewhat rhetorical, in that Watts is indeed trying to persuade, but he is not trying to sell you snake oil. I see his method more as a means of demonstration than rhetoric, and the reason for that is because we, as ordinary humans, are conditioned from birth to think about reality in ways which we accept as valid, but which, upon closer scrutiny, sometimes turn out to be not so valid.

Watts is here reflecting Eastern views, especially Zen, which is a doctrineless view of reality. It is a method which shows you that what you think you see, is not what actually is. It has nothing to do with "philosophy", which is a product of thought.

"Zen is a finger pointing to the moon, but is not the moon itself"

 

[godnotgod]

Is this lecture illogical?

Reality is a psychological event: things exist because we define--insertion of gaps (space) through filtering and sensory discrimination. Before being divided into things, when there is no consciousness to measure and divide, what is there but no thing?

:yes:!

 

[Smoke]

Does that have any bearing on the validity of his statement concerning ex nihilo nihil fit?

It was meant as my comment on his argument. It's nonsense, the kind of thing that might be produced by a drug-addled mind. I really do have tremendous respect for Alan Watts, but everything he said was not of equal value.

Besides, how do you know how much drugs he did?

I don't. But we know he experimented with psychedelics, and you have wonder sometimes ...

 

[Smoke]

Watts is here reflecting Eastern views, especially Zen, which is a doctrineless view of reality. It is a method which shows you that what you think you see, is not what actually is. It has nothing to do with "philosophy", which is a product of thought.

I think I understand what Watts is trying to do, but I can't help thinking that he isn't doing it very successfully in this particular case.

 

[Dunemeister]

Watts is here reflecting Eastern views, especially Zen, which is a doctrineless view of reality. It is a method which shows you that what you think you see, is not what actually is. It has nothing to do with "philosophy", which is a product of thought.

"Zen is a finger pointing to the moon, but is not the moon itself"

Self-refuting mumbo-jumbo, in my opinion. I have to think quite hard to see that what I think I see isn't what is. So if I get there, it's a product of thought. If Zen is as your citation suggests, it's most certainly a philosophy.

 

[godnotgod]

It was meant as my comment on his argument. It's nonsense, the kind of thing that might be produced by a drug-addled mind. I really do have tremendous respect for Alan Watts, but everything he said was not of equal value.

OK, but what is it about this particular statement that is "nonsense" to you? And how do YOU know what kinds of things are produced by a drug-addicted mind? Man produces hatred and violence without such drugs. Essentially, you have said nothing about his statement, other than to condemn it.

I don't. But we know he experimented with psychedelics, and you have wonder sometimes ...

Look, let us stick to the material at hand, shall we, and avoid judging people on grounds for which we have no information. Logically speaking, just because someone experimented with drugs does not automatically mean he is deluded.

Again, let us talk about the material at hand, shall we?

 

[godnotgod]

I think I understand what Watts is trying to do, but I can't help thinking that he isn't doing it very successfully in this particular case.

....and what, exactly, is it you think Watts is "trying to do"?

 

[Smoke]

OK, but what is it about this particular statement that is "nonsense" to you? And how do YOU know what kinds of things are produced by a drug-addicted mind? Man produces hatred and violence without such drugs. Essentially, you have said nothing about his statement, other than to condemn it.

Look, let us stick to the material at hand, shall we, and avoid judging people on grounds for which we have no information. Logically speaking, just because someone experimented with drugs does not automatically mean he is deluded.

Jesus. I never said he was deluded; I specifically said I have a lot of respect for Alan Watts -- who, if he were here, wouldn't be so bloody touchy about it.

Again, let us talk about the material at hand, shall we?

Light does not come out of nothing. Sound does not come out of nothing. If something comes out of nothing, Alan is doing a very poor job of explaining it.

 

[Smoke]

....and what, exactly, is it you think Watts is "trying to do"?

I think he is trying to simultaneously break down the way we look at reality and expand the way we look at reality. I think he's trying to nudge us past duality. I just don't think this is a very effective way to do it. At least, it's not very effective from my perspective.

 

[godnotgod]

Self-refuting mumbo-jumbo, in my opinion.

Yeah? Show me!

I have to think quite hard to see that what I think I see isn't what is. So if I get there, it's a product of thought.

Maybe your problem is that you think the center of consciousness is in your head. You're just thinking too much, and if you continue, you might break, and that is a good thing! If you "get there" it will be because your thinking mind will have self-destructed in its futile attempt to try to see via of thought. You either see or you don't. If you see, you are not thinking; if you are thinking you do not see.

If Zen is as your citation suggests, it's most certainly a philosophy.

No, it is not. Pointing to something is not a philosophy. It is just pointing to something. No thought is involved in pointing; therefore, philosophy (as well as doctrine and belief) cannot come into play.

Do not worry, Dunemeister! If you manage to stop your thinking mind (ie; 'monkey mind'), you will not die! Actually, your ego might, and that is a good thing. Then you will be able to see things as they are, rather than how your ego tells you they are.