Lots of people were quoting Matt Kahn on my FB wall so I checked out his stuff and he totally creeped me out! I went to his website and he was charging $400 for a 30min session with him!?? WTF?
To this point the Questioner made, "So it seems the messenger and the message weren't entirely congruent."
This is such a fascinating topic because it really reveals a lot of ideas we have about "what is" that are not necessarily true.
For example, say you are walking down the street in New York City and you are lost. The only person on the street with you is obviously drunk neo-Nazi skinhead. Lucky for you, for whatever reason you are not afraid of him, though your politics and probably everyone of your ideas conflicts with his. You ask him how to get to MOMA because you are heading there to see some art. He answers, and moments later you are on your way and 10 minutes later you are at your destination and his directions proved to be perfect.
This is a good example of separating knowledge from whatever judgments we have about the beliefs, lifestyle, or anything else about a person. The knowledge the skinhead delivered was flawless. Buddha or Gandhi could not have improved upon it.
So, was the message congruent with the messenger? Who's to say? From the skinheads perspective the answer is yes, and from yours let's say because you were a palled by everything else about him, the answer might be no. The fact is this is entirely Subjective and has absolutely no bearing on knowledge.
The really interesting part of this is that if/when we focus on our judgments about an individual, there is no possible way for our own biases not to come into play. This is especially poignant when we judge spiritual teachers based on their actions rather than their knowledge. We have pre-concluded that knowledge and action are the same, but it isn't true at all.
I'm not remotely saying that assessing our impressions about an individual is not a good way to determine whether (especially) a "spiritual" teacher is right for us or is, according to us, practicing what they preach. Rather, I'm highlighting the fact that if we want to learn something (anything), and we suspect or want to find out if another possesses that knowledge, allowing our pre-existing biases to determine how we take in the information they are presenting to us will make it impossible to actually hear them.
This applies especially in the so-called "spiritual" arena where we already come ignorant by definition, assuming we consider ourselves to be a seeker.
The other problem is that Knowledge is conflated with Sainthood, even though those two have nothing to do with each other. That bias however makes people gravitate towards teachers and gurus who have the schtick down pat - soft talking, sweet demeanor, beaming smile, "appropriate" robes or clothing, a beatific look in the eyes, etc. that's all an act and has not a damned thing to do with knowledge. Not saying that someone can't be that way, but that if they are acting that way then they are acting.
Alan Watts is a perfect example because he clearly knew knowledge from ignorance. In fact, look at how well he was able to separate the two. So much so that he could not even apply it to himself. Maybe that just means the knowledge he had was incomplete, or maybe there was some other reason why he was unable to find deep ease and contentment with himself exactly as he is. But, if we are looking for someone ELSE to be walking the walk before taking on board the knowledge that they are disseminating, then maybe we should be looking in the mirror first and asking how exactly it is that we are judging them?
You said, "Maybe that just means the knowledge [Alan Watts] had was incomplete." Let me respond to that idea:
Knowledge is limited by various factors and must, in my view, always be "incomplete." I mean such factors as the limitations of the human nervous system, the unavoidable cognitive biases that all humans share to one degree or another, etcetera. Even the most modest claim to knowing must be qualified by the word "seem," as in: "The only thing I can be certain of is that I, as a center of awareness, SEEM to exist.
I say that certainty is the death of intelligence. Why? because due to human psychological and perceptual limitations, the "I" of enunciation—the “I” that calls itself “me”--never thinks just what it thinks it thinks, and never is just what it thinks itself to be. Only the most intelligent among us seem capable of allowing the "I know" space to remain empty. Lesser minds fill that space with beliefs masquerading as knowledge.
This “I” of enunciation might imagine having "complete knowledge" of something, but such knowledge is contingent and subject to revision. Why? Partly because additional information can always emerge and demand revision of previously held ideas, but also because what one calls "I" constitutes PART of one’s actual being, but nowhere near all of it. Most of one’s actual being operates behind the scenes, below conscious awareness. Think iceberg.
Perhaps some of that unconscious material--the ice of the iceberg--can become conscious (through psychoanalysis, for example), but most of it will never be known by "I."
No one, I say, knows what any of this "really" is, and we have no way of finding out.
Hi Robert, I agree with this completely. Wonderful insights and as always, very clear communication of them.
Everything "seems," really, right? The only "thing" that does not seem is being itself, by which I mean "what is." I call that consciousnesses as well, but importantly the definition is synonymous with what I mean by "what is." After all, consciousnesses (or known-ness) must pervade "what is" since we are chatting about it :).
You say, "I say that certainty is the death of intelligence. Why? because due to human psychological and perceptual limitations, the "I" of enunciation—the “I” that calls itself “me”--never thinks just what it thinks it thinks, and never is just what it thinks itself to be. Only the most intelligent among us seem capable of allowing the "I know" space to remain empty. Lesser minds fill that space with beliefs masquerading as knowledge."
I love that. To me the "certainty" that you apparently must have in order to say all that, IS knowledge. Knowledge is not beliefs, though beliefs are knowledge. Your "knowledge" (that you presented) isn't yours, and you know that, which is what makes it knowledge. Beliefs are always yours or mine or whoever's. Of course it's a spectrum within duality, such as duality is, and in the end (which is "now," lol) only "what is" is and anything else (including knowledge) is not - meaning appears but has no substance of its own.
This is why, as I see it, you stress frequently with conviction that knowledge is always incomplete, that "what is" is unknowable, and that certainty about anything other than seeming-ness is "nonsense or projection" (my words, subject to correction). I would agree that is the only conviction that is actually possible, however it is also possible to see that conviction in other ways. In other words, to have a different attitude.
For example, I completely agree with all that I just attributed to your viewpoint as I understand it. At the same time, my bias is that because of all that (knowledge) it is possible to live a much more fulfilling life - meaning one of dispassion about passion, conscious recognition of the "bliss" (or whatever one chooses to call it) of being, and the resulting manifestation of whole and complete-ness which for me is best stated as ease of being - through logical analysis of experience, because without conjuring up fairy tales one can infer that "in reality" (which is the only "non-place" we can possibly be) there is NO POSSIBLE PROBLEM. (I'm not suggesting you disagree (or not) with this, just that I hear a slightly different bias in the "message" you communicate.)
Why can this be inferred? Because "what is" is all there is and IT never changes. How could it, since it is not anything specific but the totality that is or includes (there would be no way to tell which) known-ness? The apparent choice to view "what is" this way, or instead to view it another way, is not in our control. For that matter, neither is the choice to conclude that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is all there is. The difference between viewpoints is superficial, and only applies to the relative experience of the seeming individual, or so it seems :).
I love your point about the unconscious. Not only might it not ever all be, or even that most won't be, known by the "I" of enunciation, but that implies that what we think we are can never be accurate - or I would say even relevant - to anything actually, least of all and ironically our self image. It also implies that what we do (think we) know is equally dubious. We have no idea what we are, except in our imagination!
Therapy does a good job (assuming the quality of the therapist and whether the patient is qualified - aka open, or in a position - to learn and understand the structure of how their mind appears) of objectifying our ideas and motivations so we can depersonalize them. Taken to its logical conclusion, therapy is a great preparation for appreciating a non-dual viewpoint. If one is not aware of the presence of the iceberg (especially the unseen part) then one is doomed to suffer needlessly the psychological pain of inappropriate (unnecessary) forms of guilt, shame, shoulds and the like. But, if one is aware of the iceberg then it is possible to also notice (when it is discovered or pointed out) the "part" of yourself that never gets (or was) associated with the iceberg.
Lots of people were quoting Matt Kahn on my FB wall so I checked out his stuff and he totally creeped me out! I went to his website and he was charging $400 for a 30min session with him!?? WTF?
Talks about "love" but wants money before you get any. The world's second oldest profession: prostitution.
Great reply Robert 🙏🏻☀️.
To this point the Questioner made, "So it seems the messenger and the message weren't entirely congruent."
This is such a fascinating topic because it really reveals a lot of ideas we have about "what is" that are not necessarily true.
For example, say you are walking down the street in New York City and you are lost. The only person on the street with you is obviously drunk neo-Nazi skinhead. Lucky for you, for whatever reason you are not afraid of him, though your politics and probably everyone of your ideas conflicts with his. You ask him how to get to MOMA because you are heading there to see some art. He answers, and moments later you are on your way and 10 minutes later you are at your destination and his directions proved to be perfect.
This is a good example of separating knowledge from whatever judgments we have about the beliefs, lifestyle, or anything else about a person. The knowledge the skinhead delivered was flawless. Buddha or Gandhi could not have improved upon it.
So, was the message congruent with the messenger? Who's to say? From the skinheads perspective the answer is yes, and from yours let's say because you were a palled by everything else about him, the answer might be no. The fact is this is entirely Subjective and has absolutely no bearing on knowledge.
The really interesting part of this is that if/when we focus on our judgments about an individual, there is no possible way for our own biases not to come into play. This is especially poignant when we judge spiritual teachers based on their actions rather than their knowledge. We have pre-concluded that knowledge and action are the same, but it isn't true at all.
I'm not remotely saying that assessing our impressions about an individual is not a good way to determine whether (especially) a "spiritual" teacher is right for us or is, according to us, practicing what they preach. Rather, I'm highlighting the fact that if we want to learn something (anything), and we suspect or want to find out if another possesses that knowledge, allowing our pre-existing biases to determine how we take in the information they are presenting to us will make it impossible to actually hear them.
This applies especially in the so-called "spiritual" arena where we already come ignorant by definition, assuming we consider ourselves to be a seeker.
The other problem is that Knowledge is conflated with Sainthood, even though those two have nothing to do with each other. That bias however makes people gravitate towards teachers and gurus who have the schtick down pat - soft talking, sweet demeanor, beaming smile, "appropriate" robes or clothing, a beatific look in the eyes, etc. that's all an act and has not a damned thing to do with knowledge. Not saying that someone can't be that way, but that if they are acting that way then they are acting.
Alan Watts is a perfect example because he clearly knew knowledge from ignorance. In fact, look at how well he was able to separate the two. So much so that he could not even apply it to himself. Maybe that just means the knowledge he had was incomplete, or maybe there was some other reason why he was unable to find deep ease and contentment with himself exactly as he is. But, if we are looking for someone ELSE to be walking the walk before taking on board the knowledge that they are disseminating, then maybe we should be looking in the mirror first and asking how exactly it is that we are judging them?
Thank you, VG.
You said, "Maybe that just means the knowledge [Alan Watts] had was incomplete." Let me respond to that idea:
Knowledge is limited by various factors and must, in my view, always be "incomplete." I mean such factors as the limitations of the human nervous system, the unavoidable cognitive biases that all humans share to one degree or another, etcetera. Even the most modest claim to knowing must be qualified by the word "seem," as in: "The only thing I can be certain of is that I, as a center of awareness, SEEM to exist.
I say that certainty is the death of intelligence. Why? because due to human psychological and perceptual limitations, the "I" of enunciation—the “I” that calls itself “me”--never thinks just what it thinks it thinks, and never is just what it thinks itself to be. Only the most intelligent among us seem capable of allowing the "I know" space to remain empty. Lesser minds fill that space with beliefs masquerading as knowledge.
This “I” of enunciation might imagine having "complete knowledge" of something, but such knowledge is contingent and subject to revision. Why? Partly because additional information can always emerge and demand revision of previously held ideas, but also because what one calls "I" constitutes PART of one’s actual being, but nowhere near all of it. Most of one’s actual being operates behind the scenes, below conscious awareness. Think iceberg.
Perhaps some of that unconscious material--the ice of the iceberg--can become conscious (through psychoanalysis, for example), but most of it will never be known by "I."
No one, I say, knows what any of this "really" is, and we have no way of finding out.
Hi Robert, I agree with this completely. Wonderful insights and as always, very clear communication of them.
Everything "seems," really, right? The only "thing" that does not seem is being itself, by which I mean "what is." I call that consciousnesses as well, but importantly the definition is synonymous with what I mean by "what is." After all, consciousnesses (or known-ness) must pervade "what is" since we are chatting about it :).
You say, "I say that certainty is the death of intelligence. Why? because due to human psychological and perceptual limitations, the "I" of enunciation—the “I” that calls itself “me”--never thinks just what it thinks it thinks, and never is just what it thinks itself to be. Only the most intelligent among us seem capable of allowing the "I know" space to remain empty. Lesser minds fill that space with beliefs masquerading as knowledge."
I love that. To me the "certainty" that you apparently must have in order to say all that, IS knowledge. Knowledge is not beliefs, though beliefs are knowledge. Your "knowledge" (that you presented) isn't yours, and you know that, which is what makes it knowledge. Beliefs are always yours or mine or whoever's. Of course it's a spectrum within duality, such as duality is, and in the end (which is "now," lol) only "what is" is and anything else (including knowledge) is not - meaning appears but has no substance of its own.
This is why, as I see it, you stress frequently with conviction that knowledge is always incomplete, that "what is" is unknowable, and that certainty about anything other than seeming-ness is "nonsense or projection" (my words, subject to correction). I would agree that is the only conviction that is actually possible, however it is also possible to see that conviction in other ways. In other words, to have a different attitude.
For example, I completely agree with all that I just attributed to your viewpoint as I understand it. At the same time, my bias is that because of all that (knowledge) it is possible to live a much more fulfilling life - meaning one of dispassion about passion, conscious recognition of the "bliss" (or whatever one chooses to call it) of being, and the resulting manifestation of whole and complete-ness which for me is best stated as ease of being - through logical analysis of experience, because without conjuring up fairy tales one can infer that "in reality" (which is the only "non-place" we can possibly be) there is NO POSSIBLE PROBLEM. (I'm not suggesting you disagree (or not) with this, just that I hear a slightly different bias in the "message" you communicate.)
Why can this be inferred? Because "what is" is all there is and IT never changes. How could it, since it is not anything specific but the totality that is or includes (there would be no way to tell which) known-ness? The apparent choice to view "what is" this way, or instead to view it another way, is not in our control. For that matter, neither is the choice to conclude that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is all there is. The difference between viewpoints is superficial, and only applies to the relative experience of the seeming individual, or so it seems :).
I love your point about the unconscious. Not only might it not ever all be, or even that most won't be, known by the "I" of enunciation, but that implies that what we think we are can never be accurate - or I would say even relevant - to anything actually, least of all and ironically our self image. It also implies that what we do (think we) know is equally dubious. We have no idea what we are, except in our imagination!
Therapy does a good job (assuming the quality of the therapist and whether the patient is qualified - aka open, or in a position - to learn and understand the structure of how their mind appears) of objectifying our ideas and motivations so we can depersonalize them. Taken to its logical conclusion, therapy is a great preparation for appreciating a non-dual viewpoint. If one is not aware of the presence of the iceberg (especially the unseen part) then one is doomed to suffer needlessly the psychological pain of inappropriate (unnecessary) forms of guilt, shame, shoulds and the like. But, if one is aware of the iceberg then it is possible to also notice (when it is discovered or pointed out) the "part" of yourself that never gets (or was) associated with the iceberg.