
Alan Watts: Money, Guilt, and the Machine - martythemaniak
http://pastebin.com/MDj3LSdV
======
jnbiche
"We must recognize then that money is a pure abstraction."

Yes, this is a fact that people in the Bitcoin, and recently, Dogecoin
communities have come to realize. I think this realization is a gift that
cryptocurrencies could bring to the general population. There's nothing
magical about a US Dollar. It's a unit of account, nothing more.

If you _really_ want to fall down the rabbit hole, then learn about the
(original) concept of Ryan Fugger's Ripple. The recent Ripple company does
implement the Ripple idea of allowing individuals and communities create and
trade their own units of account, but is presently emphasizing other features
of their system. But you can absolutely use all the (well-done) Ripple
software in the manner that Ryan Fugger originally imagined:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_(payment_protocol)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_\(payment_protocol\))

~~~
bachback
wrong. bitcoin has a smart contract system in it. its not just a unit of
account. ripple is about as good as eGold. actually Watts had tremendous
foresight when he says here: " And one of the reasons that our technology is
impeded and prevented from feeding the world properly is the failure of one of
our networks. It's an information network and it's called money" here we are,
and now money is a network.

~~~
kordless
You should be more specific when negating things. I don't parse anything that
jnbiche said as an incorrect assumption.

Ripple provides a market exchange methodology, among other things. Bitcoin
can't do that natively due to the lack of looping in its scripts.

Also, check out Ethereum. If they pull it off, it'll twist your noodle with
the possibilities.

~~~
jnbiche
You've probably checked out colored coins and counterparty, too. They both
already have working implementations of secondary markets on top of the
Bitcoin blockchain. Colored coins has two GUIs, and counterparty has a command
line client with a simplified GUI, and more GUIs on the way.

Both of these projects are very alpha, so anyone checking them out should only
use money you can afford to lose until they're out of beta (and the devs of
both projects are pretty responsible about this, I believe).

I'm a little skeptical of Ethereum. It's notoriously difficult to build
sandboxed virtual systems for browsers, much less for payment/asset exchange
systems. And the money they raised with no working prototype is somewhat
obscene (I think the typical HN start-up would have a conniption fit if they
learned how much they raised, and still maintained ownership). But it _is_ an
incredibly cool idea. We'll see.

------
howeyc
That was a lot of rambling and tangents that don't relate to what I assume was
the central point:

If we keep automating and laying off people, eventually there wont be enough
people with money (jobs to get money) in order to purchase goods made by
machines.

The proposed solution seems to be:

Alter the structure of the system such that the government creates debt and
distributes money as income to the people, this way even the jobless can buy
products made by automation.

Some other things in there:

* Comparison of Catholics and Protestants (particularly related to guilt)

* Prices of goods should not rise.

* Making mistakes is okay.

* Money and credit is bookkeeping.

~~~
dredmorbius
It helps tremendously to know that in some languages, the words for "debt" and
"guilt" are the same (in German, the word is "Schulden", as in "entshuldigung"
meaning "excuse me").

If you're familiar with the Lord's Prayer, you should know that there are two
forms of it in English: the Catholic ("forgive us our debts") and the
protestant ("forgive us our trespasses"). Where again, the meanings of "debt"
and "guilt" or "offense" are entwined.

Money-as-abstraction then has significance: money _isn 't_ true wealth, it's
the _representation_ of wealth, and that representation can be modified. Hence
such confusions as "governments have to balance their budgets" \-- not
necessarily true as a governments can vary the value of money, either through
inflation (fiat) or devaluation (specie). What the goldbugs fail to recognize
is that when governments find themselves with debts they cannot repay
(denominated in currencies under their control), they'll devalue those
currencies. _Regardless_ of the underlying standard. Look to the Roman
denarius (covered by Joseph Tainter in _Collapse_ ) or the devaluations of
British currency (detailed at length, as he does everything, in Adam Smith's
_Wealth of Nations_ ).

If you're interested in more of Soddy's work, his _Role of Money_ is available
online (I've skimmed it briefly, haven't read it):
[https://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp](https://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp)

------
camperman
Two serious problems with this essay. 1 Tim 6 doesn't say that the love of
money is the root of all evil. The Greek says that the love of money is the
root of all kinds of evil, as in the sense of "all sorts of different kinds."

Secondly, guilt as Watts defines it simply does not exist in honour-shame
cultures. It's a very Western thing and a very recent thing in human history
too.

~~~
StavrosK
What's honour-shame if it's not guilt, though? That's not a rhetorical
question.

~~~
camperman
In honour-shame societies, there is simply no concept of internal remorse or
guilt. The correctional vectors are external rather than internal. A member of
such a society - and they're almost always collectivist rather then individual
- will strive to be honourable while avoiding shame. Here's a Chinese person
talking about the difference:

"...A majority of the world is Chinese. So am I. We emphasize the extended
family as a unit, we carry a monstrously vast line of traditions, and we even
place surnames in front of personal names to show priorities in terms of
identity. Certainly, not all of us follow the ways of our ancestors strictly,
but this is due to the influence of, you guessed it, the Western world. But
having been raised as in the first generation in this nation, I can say for
certain that there are immense cultural differences. In particular, honor and
shame rather than innocence and guilt are the issue: we do not think in terms
of Jiminy Crickets in our heads, but rather base values on the group as a
whole.

At gatherings, for instance, a father may yell at his child for being "diu
liên"\--throwing one's face away, a lovely image for what it means to be, for
lack of a better word, shameful. But even in instances of moral guilt, what
happens? The same phrase is applied, whether the child was caught cheating on
homework, stealing a bicycle, or throwing food across the room in a
restaurant. In some cases, yes, manners are the issue, but for some reason, it
is not the fact that the action was in itself wrong that one is condemned for
--it is the fact that it brought shame, particularly to the family name. For
this reason, perhaps, Asians in general have been advocates of stricter
discipline, particularly corporal. Modern psychologists may claim that
punishment does no good, but for the honor-driven parents, it certainly brings
about the desired behavior modification.

Of course, there are more trivial examples. There is rarely a gathering in
which people will not "fight" over the right to pay the bill. Of course, each
will attempt to claim it first, (not because it is morally right, or because
they really want to, but because it is honorable,) and they will attempt to
excuse the others by elaborating on how embarrassing it would be to accept it.
Then there is the stereotype of the high grades, the good schools, the
countless extracurriculars, at least piano or violin, and so forth. For what
purpose? To represent the family name. You will never hear the older
generation say, "It's for your own good," whether in regard to an order, or a
punishment, or anything, because it simply isn't about us as individuals. And
you will most certainly never hear, "Don't you feel bad?" The Chinese are
notorious for their stoic attitudes. It is sometimes joked that we as a race
don't even have emotions.

There is another silly game often played. One might say something
intentionally belittling so as to win reinforcing praise from the other party,
whether with regard to how a child never studies or how poorly the food is
cooked. This, of course, is a cheap way to win, you guessed it, honor. As a
result, the principle of limited good shows up all the time. People do not
dispense presents or hospitality out of goodwill, but necessity, because it
would be shameful to accept it without returning the favor.

Of course, a known tendency in such a society can be to become completely
dishonest. So long as one is not caught, any means are fine. There is fierce
competition and pressure, which is why it never surprised me that many of my
fellow American- born Chinese peers ended up, in fact, doing this. They had
become so obsessed with the outward favor that they took a Machiavellian
approach to it all. It never once bothered them that they might be doing the
wrong thing. It never once occurred to them to live for themselves. It never
occurred to them that there was an internal concept of right and wrong. These
are ideas foreign to us.

I was once reprimanded for inappropriate behavior during recess back in
elementary school. When the teacher tried to explain how I might hurt the
other children, how I should feel bad, and how I should say sorry, much of it
did not make any sense, because I knew my parents would scold me for making
them look bad. One view was individualistic, emotional, and personal. The
other was collectivist, pragmatic, and social."

~~~
forkandwait
Awesome comment. I think of this as the difference between Jesus and Buddha,
which I have riffed about in other HN comments. Jesus says: You stand alone
judged before God. Buddha says: Your supposed self is an illusion, the
collectivity is all.

EDIT: I had an Alan Watts phase growing up, started by cool Episcopalian
seminary students who lent me his books; Watts got ordained, then (I think)
subsequently defrocked for his carousing.

~~~
camperman
Careful - the new testament is _extremely_ collectivist and honor-shame based
:) Individual judgement happens to be sure but is far from being the only one.
Paul threatens the Corinthian church with a sort of collective judgement that
would have brought them to their knees, the idea being that everyone's faults
would have been paraded in front of everyone else publicly.

------
wfn
For anyone who hasn't listened to Alan Watts (to his words and to his voice),
I recommend a rather related talk of his (with video and everything!), 'Work
as Play'
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiEzxNqw6_0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiEzxNqw6_0)

~~~
diydsp
Yes, I, too, can recommend listening to any of Alan Watts' many recordings
available on youtube.

I don't agree 100% with everything he says, including his view of money, but I
have spent many long evenings laying quietly listening and considering his
perspectives.

In particular, he teaches the concept of Atman, which is the idea that the
Self doesn't end at our body, but extends beyond our bodies and eventually
includes the entire universe. Battles, interactions and encounters of person
against person are really one organism (not Gaia...) getting to know another
part of itself.

------
freshfey
Great essay. I remembered to pick up on of his books again. For now, this
video will have to do:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnFUDVpFwFQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnFUDVpFwFQ)
(What If Money Was No Object?)

------
vixen99
GB Shaw's "Money is the most important thing in the world until you have
enough of it" is a truism aside from hermit existence.

On the other hand, Watts' "Yes, one can take a whole handful of crisp dollar
bills and practically water your mouth over them. But this is a kind of person
who is confused, like a Pavlov dog, who salivates on the wrong bell. " rings
hollow if you have bills to pay.

------
marincounty
I have never understood the 'love of money". You need money to live
comfortably, but I don't understand Trump, or Facebook money. I find it
interesting a lot of men make their "bundle" in their mating years. I have
further noticed a more than a fair amount of obtuse, fugly, mean men have a
need to make too much money. I sometimes think it has evolutionary roots? As
to Allen Watts; he was a success for what he valued. A lot of people ask why
he drank so much vodka if he was so happy and enlightened. I personally think
it was a different time, and alcoholism just crept up on him and no one really
told him to stop. Even twenty years alcoholism was not concerned the killer it
is today. As the the money worshipers of this generation--I can't relate. I
see the fitly Lookers everywhere--and you are ugly. I always felt the most
beautiful women in the world are Amish. I have always felt this way--and it's
more than just good Midwestern genes.

~~~
dominotw
>if he was so happy and enlightened

I don't remember him claiming this. Infact, one of the common themes in his
lecutures is that you can't beat the game( yin-yang)

------
fexl
In the South Pacific island story, when the gold was lost, the money was lost.
That was a loss of a physical substance with a unique combination of specific
physical characteristics. If it had been silver, copper, platinum, rhodium, or
iron, I doubt they would have said "Oh well, we didn't really lose anything."
The loss was real.

Some say that gold is useless, but I find it hard to imagine that any
substance which is so durable, ductile, malleable, divisible conductive, rare,
pretty, non-corrosive, and non-reactive could ever be "useless" to human
beings. For example, it is excellent for electrical conductors in a salt water
environment. Human beings have also found that those same physical
characteristics make it useful as money.

There is no irony in expending effort to dig it up and then putting it back
underground in vaults. That's because it is more _useful_ in the form of bars
than in the form of raw ore.

~~~
jacobparker
I'm not sure if you intend to directly reply to TFA. Mr. Watts does dedicate a
sentence to that fact (Ctrl-F "It has some value for industry [...]" \- the
weakness of his assertion can probably be excused based on his profession and
thesis) but the point he was trying to make was that losing the gold is not
something that should gum up the rest of the economy.

~~~
fexl
I did see that comment. However, I was addressing Mr. Watt's conclusion from
the story: "What this means then is that money is nothing but bookkeeping."

I disagree. What that story means is that the people were left holding paper
certificates worth exactly nothing.

It is true that before the loss of gold was discovered, each individual who
received a certificate and then spent it suffered no loss.

He did suffer a loss upon receiving a certificate, but he didn't know it
because nobody knew the certificates were worthless. He then suffered an
offsetting gain when he spent the certificate.

All along the way, people were suffering losses and transferring those losses
to others. They just didn't know it was happening.

Similarly, you might receive a counterfeit $100 bill and not know it, and then
spend it at a store successfully. Only the poor sap who _discovers_ that he
holds a counterfeit and consequently decides not to spend it loses in the end.

I doubt the loss of gold would devastate that economy. Some people holding
large quantities of the worthless certificates would indeed be personally
devastated. However, I would expect that the wealth of that society would
already vastly exceed the value of the lost gold, since the people would no
doubt be the owners of other physical commodities, capital equipment, trade
secrets, and other forms of value.

Gold, like any form of money, does not have to exist in an amount "equal to"
the amount of (other) wealth in a society. That's an infantile notion. A
single piece of money can be traded thousands of times per second, and can
support far more economic activity than its face value would suggest. Money is
traded at the margin.

Therefore I agree that the loss shouldn't gum up the entire economy forever,
though it could be very stunning and painful until the people recovered from
their very real losses.

------
rsmith05
This is the talk in audio form:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssDY74nLuLg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssDY74nLuLg)

I love listening to Alan Watts speak and have heard hours upon hours of his
talks. In general, they're pretty good and make you think.

------
hyaline9
Alan Watts was a wonderful human being who spoke and wrote eloquently, kindly,
and often humourously on all manner of topics concerning the relationship of
man and woman to the larger universe. Some of his talks can be found at the
Internet Archive:

[https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22alan%20watts%22](https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22alan%20watts%22)

From the talk "On Being God": 'The scanning process of man's conscious
attention is very much inadequate for dealing with the infinitely many
variables of the multi-dimensional processes of the universe.'

------
gojomo
In the movie 'Her', Alan Watts gets mentioned as someone Samantha and her
fellow OSes are studying.

------
moneyguilt
I find Jottit much better than pastebin for posts such as these.

[https://moneyguilt.jottit.com](https://moneyguilt.jottit.com)

------
dredmorbius
The "Great Banks of the World" story is remarkably close to that of NPR Planet
Money's "The Island of Stone Money" concerning the Island of Yap:

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131934618/the-
isla...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131934618/the-island-of-
stone-money)

------
badman_ting
It's interesting and important to know that money is an abstraction, sure. But
it's also worth knowing how belief functions in society, even if no one in the
society personally believes. Our abstractions can be more real than reality.
This is why money works even though it's fake.

------
yetanotherphd
All I see is the assertion that "money isn't real" interspersed with rambling
anecdotes.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Alan's lectures tend to cover a lot of ground. There's a bit more to what he's
saying here than just 'money isn't real', the lecture also touches on what we
give value to, how pursuing money as the route to happiness leads to multiple
issues. He touched on guilt in society too, which isn't directly about money,
but shows how the way we shape our society affects our individual behaviour,
which is linked to what was said about money.

------
dominotw
I am part of couple of Alan Watts discussion groups on facebook and reddit. I
saw a HUGE surge of interest in all these groups.

Is it because of the movie Her?

~~~
dangle
Watts has experienced a general surge in the past few years or so-- I'd
attribute it to the growing number of Youtube videos featuring audio of his
lectures. The 'What if Money Were no Object' video in particular was passed
around a lot in art communities and college campuses about two years ago. Trey
Parker and Matt Stone animated some of his lectures, adding to the surge as
well. Also, the band The Books prominently features Alan Watts samples in
their music too, which is how I was introduced.

