In defence of Alan Watts and Osho

I have heard countless times that Alan watts and osho were immoral. Alan watts was into his booze and had failed marriages and osho… Well osho I have heard liked his ladies.

I don’t know how true this is and I don’t really care. I’ve never been one for biographical information because words stand or fall on their own.

The people that report this to me think they are revealing the charlatanism of these guru types but really they are revealing that they either haven’t read/heard what they have to say or that they have but have failed to understand.

Now if you get Alan Watts and Osho you will see that what they are describing is freedom. That good and bad are a game we construct on top of reality.

Sure reality supports our games but it also supports many other games. Even further it supports many mutually exclusive games.

There’s an unspoken bit of any moral claim. “X is good” is how they are presented but if they wanted to be a more accurate representation they should add “according to me”.

Freedom is a double edged sword in that you cannot have it if you do not give it to everything else. As a human I can’t or rather won’t give it to everyone because quite simply I am a selfish individual concerned over the state of my neck.

I want to not be murdered and stolen from in other words.

So I am for locking up murderers because the less murderers wandering around the less likely I am to be murdered.

As a result of this if I murder I am likely to be locked up. I have exchanged my freedom from come uppance if I murder for an increased likelihood of not being murdered.

I refuse to take refuge in a fiction about how the cosmos supports my moral preferences.

But what Alan Watts talks about is what is. He doesn’t give any rules. Therefore he cannot be a charlaten.

The reason I admire these men… Or rather the reason I experience thrills at what they say is that I have always had that inkling that if you could be in someone else’s shoes you could forgive them easily.

I have had a desire for as long as I can remember to be able to express all the dark and grotty secrets in an open manner.

Funnily enough as I have followed this carrot I have cared less about it. But anyway…

The people who criticize people like Alan and Osho in this way are not really criticizing them at all.

They are really saying “I don’t like what they say and freedom scares me” but trying to mask it in an cloak of objectivity.

Again it’s an example of what people are doing with morality all the time.

They are scared. They don’t want to be hurt. So they express this desire as if it were a law of nature in the hopes that it will stop people hurting them.

It may work for some people but not for everyone as is evidenced by the packed state of the prison system.

Funnily enough I bet if you were to ask criminals whether they thought their action was good or bad a lot of them would say it was bad and they felt guilty.

What this shows is that morality and guilt are heavy shields that just don’t work.

So I’ve thrown mine away.

Which is the advice of Alan and osho.

So to finish.

What these people are really saying is that people like Alan Watts aren’t carrying a shield and they should be and what is more they are telling other people to throw their shields away!


The ground of morality

I believe our moral judgement is just another expression of our preferential judgement.

There are those in existence who believe murder to be good ie they have no sense of revulsion towards it. When a “normal” person witnesses a murder they feel revulsion and that is the inner reality pointed to with the statement “I believe Murder is bad”. When such a person says that then they are expressing that inner reality.

When someone who doesn’t experience that revulsion (and they do exist) says that statement then they are lying. Just as when someone who does not like the taste of sprouts would be lying if they said “These sprouts taste good”.

Murder (and any other atrocity you care to mention) are, whether we like it or not, perfectly natural. Look at a lion’s pride. When a new male kills the old leader he kills all the kids and shags all the women.

This to me is disgusting; but it is natural. It is an expression of what is, the totality. If it wasn’t, then it wouldn’t be.

Simple as.

I know what I should do but I don’t do it!

We know what we should do but we don’t do it it.

By should I don’t mean a moralistic should. I don’t mean a social norm.

I don’t mean by this that we know we should help the little old lady cross the road but don’t.

Sure there are some who feel that should. It can be a should.

What I mean is we know what we should do to be more content.

Or at least we think we do and that’s all I need for my point.

For instance personally I know I should practice mindfulness and meditation in the sense that eckhart tolle teaches it.

Not because I want to gain a special insight or to get enlightened but simply because I know it makes life incredibly pleasant for me.

I don’t know if it would for you. I would certainly suggest anyone give it a go.

But I do know from past experience that it propels me into a state of almost constant, peaceful ecstasy.

A bit like drugs except you have all the pros of sobriety and all the pros of inebriation. It really is quite fantastic.

So saying this why don’t I practice it?

Why am I not doing it Now?

To get at my reason maybe I could come at it unawares so to speak.

There may be some among you who if I said “You should try meditation” would look at me, see that I don’t practice (Well always) what I preach and decide on that basis to not bother.

You could be very unhappy and want to he happy.

Now then even if I don’t practise what I preach why should you not try it?

I mean it might work and the cost if it doesn’t is a couple of minutes out of your day.

Really you use the fact that I don’t practice what I preach as an excuse for you not to bother and the reason you use it as an excuse is the exact same reason why I don’t practice what I preach.

We’re lazy. We say we want something yet we do not do the very things that will or might bring us that thing.

In a sense this is a kind of ground.

When asked why we are like this we are left with nothing else to say but other ways of saying the same thing.

I don’t do what I know I should because I am lazy; laziness is just another way of saying you don’t do what you know you should.

There’s only one answer and it’s really quite simple.

How do we stop not doing what we know we should?

Just do it silly.

Why don’t we do it?

Because we don’t haha.

It’s incredibly simple.

To avoid this. To avoid getting what we want we come up with all sorts of crazy schemes. The craziest of all is this blame game!

Reality is anarchistic

Reality is anarchistic. This is the bottom line.

You may not like this fact, and I assure you it is a fact, but reality simply doesn’t give a fuck.

Anarchy is no law.

Now there are what we have called laws such as gravity. But really we’re playing a game there. We have constructed morality and a legal system and we see that reality behaves in an ordered fashion; because we find it difficult to understand things in non-human terms and since language arises from human behaviour we have transplanted human terms onto non-human things.

That is why we call physical laws physical laws.

The thing about a law is that it can be disobeyed. There is a law prohibiting murder but it is quite easy for me to pick up a knife and stab you in the face. So whenever I am confronted by an opportunity to break a law there is a decision on my part about whether or not I will break it.

Bodies of mass aren’t out there umming and ahhing over whether or not they are going to behave according to the law of gravity.

All moral or legal order is established upon a basic fact of anarchy: whoever is strongest gets his own way.

You can articulate this as “might is right” but that masks the fact that right only comes about as a behaviour of might. That as long as a certain right is maintained by might it is right but when that might ceases it’s maintaining activity it becomes futile to hold onto that right. Might don’t give a fuck; it will stab you in the face.

Now you can certainly turn around and say “It’s not right” but so what?

Say I say murder is right and you say murder is wrong what evidence are you going to use to back your claim. Maybe you will come up with an analysis of murder and it’s effects upon society. That is you may say that the statement “murder is wrong” rests upon pragmatics or the statement “society cannot exist if everybody murders” well I would agree but then I would say “It is right for society not to exist”

Whatever ground you give for a moral claim will be another moral claim with the same weakness as the claim you are trying to maintain.

Even the Christian argument for morality rests upon this undeniable fact concerning the reality of moral claims; that they are backed ultimately by might. If you do what is wrong the mighty god will put you into eternal prison which is the ultimate expression of might.

On lying

I don’t mind if people lie to me.

This is for many reasons. One of which is that it is utterly up to you what you tell me or don’t tell me.

This isn’t a freedom I impart to you; it’s reality. Whether I like it or not you can tell me whatever you want. Luckily I am glad about this state of affairs.

It would be good if we had social structures and constructions that made people less wary of being honest. Even less wary about simply stating what ever the reason they are lying for is. I don’t mean telling the truth behind the lie but just saying “no” or whatever occasioned the lie in the first place.

People cannot help honestly expressing themselves. Even in a lie there are deep truths about the liar such as their preferences, what they applaud and what they boo. These are generally of a much more useful and deeper significance than whatever shallow truth they are trying to hide.

Even when they are lying to you and not disclosing their own preferences they are never-the-less disclosing their opinion about you. They are showing you what it is they think you like or dislike, what you will applaud or boo. Again this is incredibly useful information that can be put into immediate use by correcting or affirming the construction the other has made of you.

A lie is never really an untruth in a deep or absolute sense. In fact I don’t believe untruth in that sense exists. There is just misappropriated truth.

For example the majority of lies told are of the nature of false intentions. A person wants to do you damage but in order for him to do so he has to convince you that he intends your well being. So he says “I’m only trying to help you”. In this particular instance the stated intention is false but it is only false because there is a hidden intention. On it’s own it just is and all that is is absolutely true.

A personal instance of how morality is used to control the working-class to their own detriment

The correct view of the working-classes’ relationship to their bosses is that of warfare.

Your employer wants to get as much labour out of you for as little money as possible.

They know that the majority of the working-class has been hoodwinked by morality. They believe such things as debts must be repaid, you should take pride in your work and of course the old chestnut of work being valuable for it’s own sake.

I remember when I worked with my dad looking after a severely handicapped person on the way to this organization that let them pretend to work on a farm and back. Basically my job was to sit in the back of the car with this person and make sure he didn’t smash the windows or masturbate.

It was a decent job that took up 3 hours of my day and paid me £40. Basically a full-time wage for part-time work.

I loved it.

My dad would work on the farm where the project for the handicapped was so I would spend the day at my grandmas.

Now my grandma was a lovely woman. Sadly she was conditioned, like most of the working-class the ethic she was conditioned into was not to her benefit.

In fact she was part of one of the greatest brain-washing institutions ever created: The Church.

During the mid-day I would like to nap. I find that I’m at my best in the evening and left to my own devices I will sleep in till 12ish.

She couldn’t stand this! She would try and have me up and doing stuff, reading books wasn’t doing stuff in her mind.

It’s really sad because in a sense this conditioning that was inflicted upon her acted as a wall between us. She wouldn’t hear any rational discourse about it. No matter how much I exclaimed that I had earnt all the money I needed and now had no obligations to myself or my land-lord she would have none of it.

Really what this ethic is saying is that a man only has value in so far as he is exerting himself for someone else. It is the slave ethic and the heart of protestantism. It is the means by which the elite deceive the oppressed into being their own oppressors.

Morality, love and freedom

When I express the idea that morality is a fiction some people say to me:

“But what about the murderers and rapists?”

As if the only defence we have against them is the law. Apart from the fact that criminals don’t obey the law by definition I think this indicates that people don’t trust themselves.

At some level they believe that if they didn’t have this outward prescription for their behaviour they would rape and murder.

Personally the reason I don’t rape is because it isn’t what I want. What I love about sex is that it is two people both doing what they really want to do and in that doing they fulfil for the other what the other really wants to do.

It is like two rivers gushing into each other, becoming one and then separating out again. This is beautiful and it is what I want when I think of sex.

Sex is the ritual that sustains love, that expresses love.

Anyway to get back on point rape would take away from sex all that I want from it.

The same with murder. I simply don’t like hurting people so I don’t.

A more extreme version of the reply I’ve had to my lack of belief in morality is when a Christian says “Why be good if there’s no hell?”.

To which I reply “So the only reason you aren’t viciously raping toddlers is because you think that if you did you would go to hell?”

Now I do think as a society we should institute laws. That is to say we should tell people within our society that if they do certain things then we – as the society – will fuck them up.

I also think we should be honest about the basis upon which we rest these laws. That is a consensus of preferences within a society. We shouldn’t obfuscate the matter through an appeal to some cosmic order.

The fact is that if the cosmos, God or whatever didn’t want murder to occur it simply wouldn’t occur. He doesn’t want people breaking the law of gravity as you can tell by the lack of people flying unassisted.

Thoughts inspired by “Eating animal flesh in this day and age is fucking grim”

How do you even make this moral claim?

I mean how to you resolve dispute.

You say it’s wrong I say it’s right.

How are you going to solve that?

By talking about the barbarity of the animal harvest system?

It doesn’t really solve the issue because at most you could say that the way in which we farm and kill these animals is bad not farming or killing in itself.

And anyway say I think it’s fine to hurt things… how are you going to solve that dispute?

To make any moral claim as an absolute is ridiculous because someone can disagree with you and the most you can do is say “All these other people agree with me” Which is silly… I mean consensus isn’t truth.

To offer a positive though…

I think true radicality now lies not in trying to change the world, not in trying to change anyone or anything.

It lies in giving the middle finger to every standard that is outside of you and discovering your own standard. Find out for yourself who you are and live that… If it means you go to prison or get killed then go to prison and get killed.

It’s better to die me than live a zombie walking around speaking hollow words to hide my true intentions.

What values should we use to judge our value?

The last blog I wrote leads naturally to this question:

“How are we to judge values?”

Which is a funny question because it is asking “What values are we to value a value by?” and whenever you say the same thing three times it sounds funny!

Anyway the first and obvious criteria would be “Does it cause suffering?”

If that were the only value by which we judged values then loads of things that have to be done but are unpleasant to do wouldn’t get done.

So the second criteria would be: “Is it necessary?”

Now the definition of “necessary” would necessarily be subjective.

For me mess and disorganization in my immediate environment cause me no suffering so it isn’t necessary that I always clean my room.

In the case of someone who suffers in the presence of mess it would be necessary for them to maintain a clean environment.

That’s funny!

The second criterion comes from and is modified by the first criterion!

I think I’ll change the name of the first criterion to “axiom” and the name of the second criterion to “theorem” because I am defining a necessary act as an act that causes the cessation of suffering.

That is that the 1st theorem arises from the axiom.

Anyway so here are two criteria:

      1. Does it cause suffering

      2. Is it necessary

Of course there is a hidden assumption here about values.

That assumption is that values are fictions, man-made constructs and as such are subject to review and change.

Even if that’s not the case and values are some objective thing so what?

What would they be but a set of statements; and if there’s one thing I know about a set of statements it’s that they don’t give a damn about anything.

They’re not going to complain if they are unfulfilled; they’re just fucking words and us silly billies make ourselves miserable by trying to maintain values that have long ago gone past their sell-by date by saying that they are objective and need to be followed because…. well because (and we all know what that means don’t we).

The second assumption is the values we have are really preferential statements in disguise and that because of this values should change with time.

What grounds do I have for the second assumption? Nothing other than might I’m afraid.

Imagine “Murder is right” were a value.

It would fail to pass our test but so what?

I’m not that strong and could easily be murdered.

But the thing is – and this is a big but – there are loads of people who don’t want to be murdered! So we form a club and one of the rules of that club is “Don’t murder people” and what backs that rule is the might of the majority.

Now to base a value system on the preferences of the majority can lead to some not very nice consequences.

One day the majority could decide that it liked eating babies alive and create the value “Eating babies alive is right”.

Now then you may not like this value but what grounds would you stand on to change it if you were in the minority?

God? Well God allows everything and if he doesn’t like the values man has made he hasn’t done much about it has he?

Really what I’m trying to get at is reality here. What are values really based on – I say preferences – and how we can use this knowledge to realize that we have licence (which is a nice way of saying power) to change the values that already exist.

Naked Revolution

Naked Revolution.


The thing is freedom!


I should be free to wear nothing if I want to!


Clothes cost money and take effort to put on; all you have to do if you don’t want to see me naked is not look at me.


You know turn your head. You’re doing it all the time anyway so it’s not really that out of your way now is it?

But for me to pander to you commercially inspired social conditioning I have to waste money and effort on trousers, shirts and what not.

You know what I think you should do? Yes you with the morally outraged look on your face. I think you should fuck off!