A Wattsian Perspective on Life’s Ultimate Riddle: Paradoxes, Double-Binds, and Their Resolution

Abstract

Inquiring into the role that paradox and double-binds play within the work of Alan W. Watts, this essay addresses a quintessential theme in Watts’ philosophy: a twofold sense of ontological estrangement (i.e., from oneself and from the cosmos). Such paradoxical separation constitutes an ontological double-bind and is referred to herein as life’s ultimate riddle. Based on an exegesis of 73 of Watts’ books, articles, and secondary sources, this essay presents what is called Wattsian double-bind theory, which extends David Smith’s (2010) triadic thesis of Watts’ mature works featuring a three-fold conceptual structure: the field, the double-bind, and play. Following an overview of Wattsian ontology, this essay then aims to (a) identify Watts’ double-bind framework informed by paradox, koans, double-binds, and their resolution via acceptance; (b) clarify the similarities and vast differences between Wattsian and classical Batesonian double-bind theories; and (c) reveal the interconnected elegance of the former, as it occurs in the themes of language, time, perception, identity, science, and religion.

Participating in Paradox: An Integrative Framework

“…As such, humans experience themselves as "an isolated center of consciousness and will inside a bag of skin, confronting an external and alien world" (Watts, 1968(Watts, /2017a. Such an enactment of L2 is tantamount to cosmological dissociation (Wheeler, 2020), where the felt-sense of self is that of inescapable estrangement from the earth and inherent alienation from the cosmos.…”

“…quintessential theme in the philosophy of Alan Watts (Wheeler, 2020). When the poles of paradox are expressed in a state of estranged discord, the twofold ontological predicament features "alienation, both of the individual from himself and of the individual from nature" (Watts, 1961(Watts, /2017b.…”

“…The theoretical approach of this essay is rooted in Watts's ( /2000) conception of paradox as "a truth standing on its head to attract attention" (p. 25), which he borrowed from G. K. Chesterton (1936Chesterton ( /2011. In this context, paradox can be understood to harbor a transformative potential, one in which "truths on their heads" can come to "stand on their feet" and be known, made conscious, and integrated into a state of noncontradiction (Wheeler, 2020). Such a "resolution" of paradox involves a shift from a state of polarized or unintegrated discord to a state of unified resolve, where the tension between the once-contradictory poles of paradox is dissolved and the two terms of paradox express in a mutually compatible, integrated, or "resolved" form.…”

“…Moreover, not all perspectives recognize ontological paradox equally, explicitly, or at all. For example, some dispositions are polarized, recognizing only one pole of the phenomenon-such as the materialistic ontological hegemony of separation, which privileges the relative pole of distinct and separate finitude, while denying the integral pole of infinite and absolute wholeness (Wheeler, 2020). On the other end of the polarized spectrum, various religious traditions assert the supremacy of the transcendent infinite-absolute and dismiss the relative pole of immanence, denying the importance of the human body, psychosomatic integration, or an individual's potential to embody the divine while living (Cortright, 2007;Washburn, 2003;Welwood, 2000).…”

“…The ontological paradox of being distinct and integral is twofold, applying both in the macro sense of self and the cosmic whole (i.e., experience and existence) and in the micro sense of the relation of one’s self to oneself (i.e., self as subject and object). This micro–macro ontological paradox is a quintessential theme in the philosophy of Alan Watts (Wheeler, 2020). When the poles of paradox are expressed in a state of estranged discord, the twofold ontological predicament features “alienation, both of the individual from himself and of the individual from nature” (Watts, 1961/2017b, p. 141).…”