Comments on: Wise Words from Mr. Watts http://cantseetheforest.org/2007/09/18/wise-words-from-mr-watts/ Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:44:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: Anthony http://cantseetheforest.org/2007/09/18/wise-words-from-mr-watts/#comment-48026 Anthony Thu, 29 May 2008 05:52:39 +0000 http://cantseetheforest.org/2007/09/18/wise-words-from-mr-watts/#comment-48026 Michael, I understand what you are saying, but I think the problem that you see is in the hierarchical (or holarchical) nature this notion implies. To explain further, to describe the self (in corporeal terms) we see that we are made up of atoms, those atoms make up molecules, molecules making systems, etc. until the human body as a self is formed and recognized as such. But Watts does not stop there, because we wouldn't exist as a self, if it were not for the air that we breath. We would not exist as a self, if it were not for the climate provided by our sun and our planet's proximity to it. The list can go on and on. But the point being that in this lineage of things that make up the self, the bottom portion in the ladder (the atoms, molecules etc), are just and equally as important as the upper portions of the ladder (air, planets, external factors) which transcend the conception of the self as it is conventionally viewed. This is a notion that pretty much explains the holarchical nature of the universe which is explicated in detail by Ken Wilber. You should check him out. Michael, I understand what you are saying, but I think the problem that you see is in the hierarchical (or holarchical) nature this notion implies. To explain further, to describe the self (in corporeal terms) we see that we are made up of atoms, those atoms make up molecules, molecules making systems, etc. until the human body as a self is formed and recognized as such. But Watts does not stop there, because we wouldn’t exist as a self, if it were not for the air that we breath. We would not exist as a self, if it were not for the climate provided by our sun and our planet’s proximity to it. The list can go on and on. But the point being that in this lineage of things that make up the self, the bottom portion in the ladder (the atoms, molecules etc), are just and equally as important as the upper portions of the ladder (air, planets, external factors) which transcend the conception of the self as it is conventionally viewed. This is a notion that pretty much explains the holarchical nature of the universe which is explicated in detail by Ken Wilber. You should check him out.

]]> By: Michael http://cantseetheforest.org/2007/09/18/wise-words-from-mr-watts/#comment-47745 Michael Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:37:18 +0000 http://cantseetheforest.org/2007/09/18/wise-words-from-mr-watts/#comment-47745 I have been intending to comment on this post for a while and I was just reminded of it when I was going through my old posts (you commented on one of them). I think I see what Watts, and you, are saying but I think it is too big of a stretch to include "the universe" as part of the self. Yes, it is the proper context of the self, but if the air is a part of the self only because we need it, then we should be a part of the air's self...but the air doesn't need us. I don't know how coherent my thoughts seem right now. Believe me, I'm all for context both in literature and in terms of defining ourselves...but Watts' notion seems to be a stretch to me. The mind or "soul" is the important factor, I suppose. I think I actually prefer dualism over ecological awareness. I have been intending to comment on this post for a while and I was just reminded of it when I was going through my old posts (you commented on one of them).

I think I see what Watts, and you, are saying but I think it is too big of a stretch to include “the universe” as part of the self. Yes, it is the proper context of the self, but if the air is a part of the self only because we need it, then we should be a part of the air’s self…but the air doesn’t need us. I don’t know how coherent my thoughts seem right now.

Believe me, I’m all for context both in literature and in terms of defining ourselves…but Watts’ notion seems to be a stretch to me.

The mind or “soul” is the important factor, I suppose.

I think I actually prefer dualism over ecological awareness.

]]> By: Who Am I? « Jim 2.0’s Blog http://cantseetheforest.org/2007/09/18/wise-words-from-mr-watts/#comment-37243 Who Am I? « Jim 2.0’s Blog Fri, 28 Sep 2007 03:11:35 +0000 http://cantseetheforest.org/2007/09/18/wise-words-from-mr-watts/#comment-37243 [...] of Can’t See the Forest also writes about this recent lecture. He provides a little more insight into the ideas presented [...] [...] of Can’t See the Forest also writes about this recent lecture. He provides a little more insight into the ideas presented [...]

]]>