Talk:Alan Watts: Difference between revisions
audio links are dead |
better reference to dead links |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
· There is no .Mac member of this name. If you'd like this member name for yourself, sign up for a .Mac account right now and have your own iWeb site in minutes." |
· There is no .Mac member of this name. If you'd like this member name for yourself, sign up for a .Mac account right now and have your own iWeb site in minutes." |
||
That goes for both "listen" citations. |
That goes for both "listen" citations. Here's the line: |
||
Other posthumous works |
|||
A number of works have been published since his death including recordings or transcripts of recorded lectures and/or articles not listed above: |
|||
* 1960 The New Alchemy, Essay (excerpt here) |
|||
* 1960 The Sense of Non-Sense, KPFA Public Radio 94.1FM Berkeley (listen:1, 2) |
|||
It's the last one that I wanted....listen 1 and 2 are dead links. |
|||
Revision as of 19:18, 20 August 2006
Links to audio in the PostHum section are dead. "Sorry ....but we can't find the iWeb page you've requested. It's possible that: · The address was entered incorrectly. Check your spelling and try again. · The .Mac member of this name has either created a page and removed it or has never published an iWeb site. · There is no .Mac member of this name. If you'd like this member name for yourself, sign up for a .Mac account right now and have your own iWeb site in minutes."
That goes for both "listen" citations. Here's the line:
Other posthumous works
A number of works have been published since his death including recordings or transcripts of recorded lectures and/or articles not listed above:
* 1960 The New Alchemy, Essay (excerpt here) * 1960 The Sense of Non-Sense, KPFA Public Radio 94.1FM Berkeley (listen:1, 2)
It's the last one that I wanted....listen 1 and 2 are dead links.
- To get you started: some notes I made while reading his biography: important dates -- Pweemeeuw, Aug 11, 2004
Excellent rewrite -- thanks pw 21:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Epicurean?
Judging by the references to his love for fine art, architecture, and food, not to mention female companionship, Watts seems to have had Epicurean tendencies. How does this comport with Zen philosopy, and should such a comparison be noted in the article? --Blainster 00:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's perfectly fine, and even makes sense. Zen has no doctrine, no scriptures and no formal teaching. It does not mandate any type of personal behavior. In fact, it's not even a philosophy. Zen is all about experiencing reality for yourself, first-hand, which is exactly what Watts did. Lazerf4rt 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia article, not a shrine. Watts was influential, and Wikipedia:NPOV lets us say that, but we can't blatantly say that he was exceptional, we have to let the readers make up their own minds. Fire Star 04:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Since when does a word like exceptional conotate a sharine?? h0riz0n
The mere fact that he has a Wikipedia article already proves that he was exceptional. It's redundant to actually come out and say it. You might as well say the same thing about every other person listed in Wikipedia. Lazerf4rt 02:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This article
- Could be condensed. Has a lot of detail that, while factual, does little (his wife's mother's husband???).
- Doesn't cover many of the topics that I've heard Watts speak on: the ego, the relationship between technology and civilization, etc.
my 2c.
- This is true, but it is virtually impossible to write everything he had said in lectures and books. The main reason is to give an impression - in short notes - who he was and what is his basic philosophy was. I know that he deserves more attention and in depth analysis but that is where people can buy his books and audiotapes to get to know more about him. Based on my knowledge of Watts, i think that the wiki of alan watts is correct and a good example of who he was.
I share the feeling that most of the factual/biographical detail could be condensed here. There doesn't seem to be much point mentioning that, for example, Alan Watts' neighbors were good carpenters. After this article, the reader is left wondering why the article exists in the first place. Sure, that's his life: Why is it noteworthy? The article needs expand on his personal philosophy, then we'll have justification for the (more relevant) biographical points. Lazerf4rt 04:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I am a little concerned about 1 things in the article:
His addiction to alcohol, i never read or heard that before so i cannot fully know if this is true. 213.93.32.246 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Jungsonn
Controversy
Most thinkers in wikipedia have a section detailing some of the problems evident in their thought. This is not true in Watts' case. Is there any particular reason for that? Is it that everyone agrees with Watts? Sounds doubtful at best.--83.252.70.232 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
That's because the current article says almost nothing about his work. What is there to disagree with? I'd like to contribute a summary of his core philosophy, then people can add their counterarguments. Although, keep in mind the article already says he was an outsider in academics. Lazerf4rt 04:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)