It is not a question of either/or.

My bold.

Female gypsies by definition are whores, right.

This also reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with a scientist from Romania that I met at a conference (he was brilliant and knew 7 languages). He went into a tirade against the vile gypsies that plagued Romania (and Hungry). He thought I was ignorant and stupid for my sympathies for the Roma. It was an interesting discussion/argument that he won, hands down. He did me a great favor and reinforced the budding notion I was beginning to understand - that it is best to actually know something of what one is discussing to have a meaningful/fruitful debate.

What happens "after" heat death?

To me it seems pretty unlikely that this "thing" we call the "big bang" and the "universe" is here for the first and last time.
Why would it happen once and never again? To me it seems more logical that existence is ultimately without beginning or end.
"Eternal recurrence", if you will.

That is none of your business.

What is my business?

Whatever floats your boat. No boats and definitely no floating after heat death, so that is out of bounds.

The thing is that I'm starting to believe it's not really about floating, but about sinking.

"The fish in the sea is not thirsty"

Floating is just amateurish sinking. Sinking is just amateurish floating. Both should be left to the professionals.

I'm not sure this is true. We manage to be oxygen hungry even though we're in a sea of oxygen.

When the shoe fits the foot is forgotten

The above is what happens when Al Bundy discovers zen.

"A single piece of crooked wood makes the whole stack a crooked thing". Eastern European Proverb

"There was never a time when the world began, because it goes round and round like a circle, and there is no place on a circle where it begins. Look at my watch, which tells the time; it goes round and round, and so the world repeats itself again and again. But just as the hour-hand of watch goes up to twelve and down to six, so too, there is day and night, waking and sleeping, living and dying, summer and winter. You can't have any of these without the other, because you wouldn't be able to know what black is unless you had seen it side-by-side with white, or white unless side-by-side with black". - Watts.

RGT. Nice, but RGT.

Oh yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBXtLhYdnx0

You are God!



Guy doesn't make me feel better...mumbo jumbo. My atoms and physics connect me to the universe. Extrapolated there's some psychology and sociology.

I am neither god nor not-god, but the one who witnesses both.

Well, i'm not sure it's a bad thing to respect people no matter what they choose, as long as their choices don't hurt me.

Where in Eastern Europe? I was just in Estonia and St. Petersburg. I liked the former. The latter was a bit dreary.

Right now, Montenegro, but going wandering again shortly. Estonia is a cool place.

I met a guy from Montenegro who convinced me to go there someday. Was he correct? Is it worth a trip?

The theology aspects of these philosophies aren't necessary. If you want to fixate on them, that's up to you.

This doesn't even rise to the level of philosophy. It's pure mindless verbal diarrhea that means nothing.
This is philosophy? "I saw a merry-go-round go round and round ergo the universe is infinite" is not a statement that gets to be called philosophy.
The old "nothing exists without contrast". Not only false in the absolute, but to the extent it's true, a mindless truism.

In binary, what would the 1 mean without the 0?

Could you have any meaningful information without both?

Immortality does not exist, but mortality is still meaningful
The absence of counting does not exist, but counting is still meaningful.

The silly "philosophical" point that Watts is trying to make is that the bad must exist with the good; there must be balance and an inverse must exist to all things to delineate. But that isn't true. You don't need darkness to appreciate light; a minor difference in intensity is sufficient. You don't need pain or malaise to know that you feel ok; feeling ok is not related to malaise even though malaise is its inverse. You don't need quiet to appreciate sound; minor variations in the frequency of sounds do.

This is what I mean by this being total mind-rot nonsense that's either false or trivially true. You need perceivable variation for perception and meaning, but you don't need the inverse or anything close to it. This type of "philosophy" is the mark of the cuck/wannabe/fake philosopher. Say something profound but false with an out to something trivially true if you get called on it. The idiots will lap up what they deem as profound, and you don't totally discredit yourself because you can always all back to the truism part of your claim.

You appear agitated.

No one is trying to trick you. Philosophy is not trying to trick you. To my understanding I asked you a very simple question.
If it helps I'll rephrase:

In binary, does 1 have any meaning without 0?

yes

11 is different than 1

"Watts put forward a worldview, drawing on Hinduism, Chinese philosophy, pantheism or panentheism, and modern science, in which he maintains that the whole universe consists of a cosmic Self playing hide-and-seek (Lila); hiding from itself (Maya) by becoming all the living and non-living things in the universe and forgetting what it really is – the upshot being that we are all IT in disguise. In this worldview, Watts asserts that our conception of ourselves as an "ego in a bag of skin," or "skin-encapsulated ego" is a myth; the entities we call the separate "things" are merely aspects or features of the whole."

Please please please, get as soon as possible away from this guy! You dont deserve this in 2017.