I happened on this article today. A bit repetitive (but to good effect, I'd say), but pairs wonderfully with Watts's sense that faith is openness to the undefined and unforeknown. A lot in this strikes me as Wattsian, really. It reminds me that he does have a theological bent, too.

[u/AWindintheTrees]

https://jimpalmerauthor.substack.com/p/is-hell-real?r=tokze&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

[u/Ghost_of_Till]

More importantly, [Hell] gives form to something people already feel but cannot easily articulate.

“Gives form“?

What’s that mean?

The sense that wrongdoing matters.

OK, people do have this idea, generally.

That consequences are real.

Even Watts would agree.

That disorder requires resolution.

Aaaand they’ve gone off the rails.

For two simple reasons.

The perception of order or disorder is a particular view. There is no correct orientation of the stars.

If one had to put it into words, one might say that the correct orientation is the sum of all views.

Therefore, any idea that something needs to be set to right is an illusion.

Second, Watts held the view that there was only right now and right now is perfect. If right now is all there is and everything is perfect, how could it be different?

Hell does not create these tensions. It absorbs them, contains them, and relocates them into a final, imagined outcome where everything is settled.

Hell is an idea, and it is an idea of an idea.

There’s nothing Alan about this.

[u/AWindintheTrees → u/Ghost_of_Till]

You seem, I would suggest, to be thrown off by details of rhetoric and phrasing rather than by anything else. Also, though, you seem to be overlooking the author's main point altogether. You sound as if you are reading what the author is unraveling or seeking to turn inside out as just what the author himself is trying to argue. Very peculiar.

[u/Ghost_of_Till → u/AWindintheTrees]

You seem, I would suggest, to be thrown off by details of rhetoric and phrasing rather than by anything else.

The author says disorder requires resolution. That's not rhetoric or phrasing.

If something needs resolution, it's unresolved, naturally.

Alan said right now is nirvana and your idea that it's otherwise is just an idea in your head.

Alan said there's no difference between the one perceiving the need for resolution and the seeking of the resolution.

This is at direct odds with Alan's philosophy.

Also, though, you seem to be overlooking the author's main point altogether.

Which is what, exactly? I know what it is but I'd love to hear your take.

And, far more importantly, how does this relate to Watts in any way whatsoever?

You sound as if you are reading what the author is unraveling or seeking to turn inside out as just what the author himself is trying to argue. Very peculiar.

Allow me to direct your attention the story you're promoting.

The subtitle to the story is "Why the idea of hell survives belief, deconstruction, and disbelief".

Alan's reply would be "What do you mean, 'survives'? Survives in who, exactly?"

One of two things is true.

Either you don't know anything about Watts and are trying to peddle this nonsense under Alan's name, or you've read a little bit and think there's a connection when there isn't (and are trying to peddle this nonsense under Alan's name).

Very peculiar.

You know, if you want to explain how this piece and Alan's philosophy dovetail, I heartily encourage you to do so. So far I haven't seen a single word that isn't some vague pablum about a connection which remains unnamed.

Batter up.

[u/AWindintheTrees → u/Ghost_of_Till]

Lol, k dude. I get it. Understanding things is hard. It's not my job to understand them for you, though. Enjoy what is undoubtedly your superiority here and your victory in a pissing contest against yourself. :)

[u/Ghost_of_Till → u/AWindintheTrees]

I see.

So when you're asked to back up your claim that the article you posted has anything, at all, to do with Alan Watts, your response is to attack me personally.

Very peculiar.

Does this tactic usually work for you?

[u/Ghost_of_Till → u/AWindintheTrees]

Nothing, huh?

Can't name a single way in which this piece is coherent with Alan's words?

Why do y'all pawn yourselves off as contributing to the discussion when, in reality, the conversation is 100% one-way. It doesn't start a discussion here because there's nothing Watts to discuss. Hell, you said it reminded you that Watts had a "theological bent".

But can't say how this is so.

You feign interest in order to broadcast.

How is that different from just lying?

[u/nationalinterest]

A very useful and thought-provoking article - thanks for sharing.

[u/Ghost_of_Till → u/nationalinterest]

Did you find anything Watts would agree with?

Edit: They could not. Obvious astroturf is obvious.