While Watts is mainly playing the contrarian here, this supposes a monolithic and continuing consciousness of "the church" that suggests a secret and shared understanding all leaders and followers. However, a powerful sociological aspect of all group behaviour means that every sap who is part of the process does not have to be acutely tuned in to a higher awareness to help carry forward the definitive character.

Still, the more plainly erotic manifestations of artwork in other religions is simply an undeniable statement of how fundamentally part of the cosmos human sexuality is and more proof of the different attitudes that prevail in the western world.

Watts finally comes to the crux of his speech and what I had been expecting. Those few seconds of orgasm that over a lifetime may add up to a few hours seem almost patently to be one the easiest ways to approach a higher plane without any dedication or discipline. One of the oldest and most basic charges against organized religion is of a concerted attempt to control the masses. Surely the attempts to imbue with fear and demonize that which represents something more powerful than they could ever offer are part of the skewed, eons-long fixation.

"The ultimate sacrament in bringing lovers together." This is why sexuality is degraded when fools say that it should only be carried on for purposes of procreation. In fact, "that is what animals do." "Mystical intoxication," becomes the ideal goddess. "Scales taken off the eyes"--by this I assume Watts means the inevitable comparison that many indulge in when looking at potential mates and which has to cease before someone will enter the realm of lover.

Returning once again to the theme of duality Watts states that opposition to prudery goes overboard. Where do you draw the line? The battle of morals represents the same complementary aspects that are part of everything. Moralists mustn't be obliterated or the resulting total hedonism would become bland and plastic. Libertines and prudes need each other. The tension that exists between them is what helps makes the world go round.

The problem with trying to relay the gist of a lecture by Watts is the same as trying to retell a good joke from a master comedian. It falls a bit flat in the translation. Also, unlike in print, a lecture will rely on simpler language and the skill of the speaker to pass on not only ideas but an overall feeling. Like a good novelist or filmmaker who takes a simple almost clichéd idea and makes it work, the cumulative and combined effects of an Alan Watts lecture are what makes it enjoyable.

Cross-posted at: Pistonhips: misanthropic ravings from an expat in Bangkok