Feelings
I just bought this at the used bookstore two days ago. It's pretty small and short, so I decided to start reading it right away. It consists of various transcripts from talks and radio shows that Watts did at some point in his life.
Here are some quotes from the first chapter: Mysticism and Morality.
"The most releasing thing that anybody can possibly understand is that our inner feelings are never wrong. They may not be a correct guide to how we should act, of course. If you feel that you hate someone intensely, it isn't necessarily right to go up to that person and cut his throat. But it is right that you should have the feeling of hate. For you see, when a person comes to himself, he comes to be one with his own feelings. And that is the only way to control them.
"The sailor always keeps the wind in his sail. Whether he wants to sail with the wind or against it, he always uses the wind. He never denies the wind."
"In the same way, a person has to keep in contact with his own feelings. Whether he wants to act as his feelings obviously suggest or in a different way, he still has to keep his feelings with him, because they are his own essential self. As soon as he abandons his feelings, he has lost himself. He becomes an empty mask with no real life behind it. And all his protestations of love and goodwill will be hollow."
"So what the mystic feels while in the mystical state of mind is the divinity, the glory, of everything that is. And when we apply that mystical insight to the moral sphere, it is one's genuine feelings that are divine and glorious."
Comments
It seems silly to place a moral judgment on feelings - good or bad/right or wrong. But does Watts mean that our inner feelings are never wrong, as in always being right? Or does he mean our feelings are our feelings and therefore are not wrong. Does that question even make sense? I'm not sure how to ask it.
If we deny our feelings (abandon them?), then clearly we have become disconnected and delusional. But at the same time, we aren't our feelings, are we?
That said, he's not saying that our feelings are right as in they always suggest the right action. Not at all. But just because you are not right in acting upon anger does not mean that you are not right to be angry. He says that by trying to control our more shameful feelings, we end up lashing out more, and causing more harm than if we were just honest.
To me it sparks of the whole Buddhist "hold, and let go" thing. Allowing your feelings to be really felt so that they may pass through you instead of fighting them eternally and having the wound grow and fester until something horrible happens.
As to the second question, I think it's important to realize what he is doing here. He's taking the mystic's point of view and applying it to morality. To do that he is necessarily losing some of the complexity of the mystic's position. And so if everything is harmonious and perfect when looked at as a whole, what stems naturally from us must also be harmonious. It is better to go with it rather than to fight it.
It does seem that our emotions only become problematic when we try to control them.
I'm still a little lost as to what you mean by applying the mystic's point of view to morality. But perhaps it is somewhat similar to what David Lynch does with his films. They are so incredibly warped and dark but that is simply because he's exploring the suppressed side of human emotion in a non-judgmental way that still fits in to the wonder and beauty of "the whole".
I've seen this Watts book at our Half Price Bookstore and have thought about picking it up forever Since it is short, I'll definitely grab it next time I'm there. It's been a long while since I've read anything by him.
I think you pretty much got it w/ the Lynch thing. It's about being non-judgmental. It will probably make a lot more sense if you read the chapter. :)