Iain, you are my favourite Old Fart by far!!! I love it when you are so passionate.
Thanks Alex for a marvelous session. Isn’t it curious that Iain hasn’t had effects from weed or psychedelics. I’ve had several people like that whom I’ve served Aya to. They were all highly intellectual, either doctors or military personnel, and they only “broke through” with significantly high doses and when they had “given up” on the experience (ie. relinquished control/stopped with expectations). Fascinating!
What a wonderful person Ian McGilchrist is! Thank you for having another conversation with him.
I too, have been having thoughts about the term liberal. It seems that people connect the words liberal with socially liberal. In a similar way the words capitalism and democracy are conflated. Democracy does not automatically go with capitalism. What we see is that the economic system, as a variable, has been liberalized, while the social liberalism is being quashed. We have a way overly active economic liberal capitalism at work and an ailing democracy. Capitalism has jumped the guard rails that democracy was unable to create in order to harness and direct the overwhelming (apparently) power of capitalism. (I bet there is a quadrant diagram about this somewhere ;-))
I must trust deep down that social liberalism will and is rising again. How soon? Who knows? Stick around. Plants break through concrete all the time.
I do believe that conversations like this one are a big part of helping things rebalance, even as it is part of the necessary chaos. Thank you to Ali, Ian and all who are participating in and helping us all through this particular passage of time and space. The rapids are pretty big!!
I am not well read academically but Iain's book TMWT is littered with references to other thinkers and scientists (not necessarily or ideally different things!) which feels a bit like being at the centre of an exploding body. So much of what he writes feels viscerally true and for me he represents one of the most important thinkers of our time.
Perhaps one of the most important aspects is the acknowledgement and embracing of uncertainty which could be seen as the 'pull' required to draw us back into connection as we find the betweenness of knowing and not knowing.
This was such a wonderful conversation! Thank you, Alexander and Iain.
It is encouraging to sense the hope that you both have, especially in this complex time we are all living through. Yes, resistance and tension are not to be overcome, but set in relationship with. This point alone can help us transform our relationship with nature and our “self.” You are both inspirational. Thank you!!
"Aristotle is the father of the philosophically correct primacy-of-existence concept -- a concept fully validated by Rand and Peikoff in the late 20th century. Plato is the father of the philosophically false primacy-of-consciousness concept -- a concept disastrously advanced by Augustine, Hobbes, Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Hegel. ...Totalitarian-trending governments and their destructive politicians, armed bureaucrats, and parasitical elites require a dishonest, primacy-of-consciousness philosophy to advance."
is there any connection between these ideas and those of Eastern Orthodox christian theologian David Bentley Hart, (also a self described "Vedantic Christian") who wrote that the Sanskrit "Existence-Consciousness-Bliss" is a phrase he has found to most fully describe theism throughout the world?
(I know it doesn't necessarily add anything, but perhaps it's interesting to consider that he is fluent in 16 languages and conversant in 16 more!)
The understanding is that an unconscious existence makes no sense. So it's not "consciousness" alone nor "existence" alone but Sat-Chit. And suffering, in this view, is only possible with a limited existence and limited consciousness; therefore infinite Existence-Consciousness would be of the nature of bliss - hence, Sat-Chit-Ananda, or Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.
Sounds Good to me Don! My understanding is that "Consciousness" is becoming increasingly, scientifically identified as the 5th Force of Nature:
"The "Zon constant k" (Consciousness) has not yet been determined. But, k would be the fifth and unifying universal constant: unifying the relativistic, macroscopic universal constants of G (gravity) and c (velocity of light) with the quantum, submicroscopic universal constants of k (Boltzmann) and h (Planck). Perhaps k manifests itself in some sort of unifying ratio with the other four universal constants, such as k: Gc/kh. The Zon constant would relate energy, mass, gravity, and their velocities to the flow of time toward decreasing entropy, not toward increasing entropy. ...Universal constants, including the quantum cosmological constant, ultimately arise from a deep, compelling symmetry or geometry controlled by conscious beings. The Zon constant fixes the values of all other constants.
Except for consciousness, gravity is the weakest yet most pervasive force in nature. Indeed, gravity controls universal motion. But, the fifth force of nature -- human consciousness -- is the grand-unifying force controlling all existence. Conscious force is more subtle to specific measurement and mathematical quantification than gravity. Still, consciousness is the most noticeable force on planet Earth. Moreover, consciousness is the only force that can alter the otherwise predestined courses of the other four forces of nature: gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear. ...Consciousness is the force that unifies all forces and heals the seeming breaches of nature caused by quantum "uncertainties".
As a law of nature expressed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, facts asserted as truth are never certain. But, principles contextually determined through integrated honesty are always certain. Thus, for example, one can have certainty about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle without paradox or contradiction: (1) Metaphysically one can be certain that any particle always has an exact position and momentum at any exact time. But, epistemologically one can be certain that exact position and momentum cannot be simultaneously measured...at least not directly. (2) Measurements can be validly done in Euclidean/Galilean/Newtonian coordinate systems or in noneuclidean/relativistic/quantum-mechanical systems, depending on the object measured and the accuracy desired. And finally, (3) the indeterminate and probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics does not negate the laws of identity, noncontradiction, or cause and effect. The decay of radioactive atoms, for example, are both indeterminate and probabilistic. But, each decay has an identifiable, noncontradictory cause. ...That means Heracleitus, Plato, and Kant are out; Parmenides, Aristotle, and Rand are in.
As a side note important later: Plato is the father of organized deception through "noble" lies -- the father of purposely dishonest government and science. Aristotle not only is the father of logic, science, and biology, but is the father of rational metaphysics and epistemology. Plato subjugated conscious life to higher mystical powers. Aristotle exalted conscious life on Earth as the highest value. Portions of Aristotle's ethics and politics, however, remained under Plato's influence, thus, are fallacious. ...Philosophically, Plato and Kant are mankind's villains, Aristotle and Rand are mankind's heroes. "
My understanding about the latest (last 10-15 years or so) musings on consciousness in science is that as a fundamental, it's not human, but actually Consciousness itself, one with Existence, that is seen as fundamental the universe, whether or not humans are present.
And the other essential difference is that the other 4 forces are abstract conceptualizations best on quantitative measurements, whereas consciousness is fundamentally Self aware. Sri Aurobindo actually defines Conscious-Force (in common with the Tantric tradition in general, which never sees Consciousness as independent of Shakti, translated variously as Force or Energy, as "a self-aware power of Existence.
One question I have though, is - is this turn back to “christianity” always going to be the shadow version of christianity that is responsible for immense amounts of homophobia, colonization and destruction. It’s very hard for me square apart any kind of “return” to something where I haven’t seen any much mending of fences, apologizes or repair. Any thoughts on how to square these concepts? Unless a new christianity is born, a mature, christianity that actually accepts all people and doesn’t invalidate indigenous, shamanistic or other religions I just feel confused.
Iain, as a lover of literature, especially poetry, seems, as we all are, confused about the nature of language and reality? Which can be resolved by looking at your face in a mirror and asking yourself if 'naming' what you see with any other words you care to imagine, will change the reality your eyes are seeing? Then consider the possibility that the ‘end-of-days' prophecy was always about the fate of the Word? And that you can follow the instructions prescribed in the ‘parable-of-resurrection'' by recognizing the ‘optical-illusion' of the Sun appearing to Rise and the equivalent ‘cognitive-illusion' of the reality-labelling word, Sunrise? Realizing the paradox of being comfortable with the phrase Mother Earth & denying the reality of Father Sun, because of a stupidly Gender-biased view of Creation?
Interesting. The original sense of the Vedic "Word" was not something that exists apart from the forms of perception; both come into being through 'consciring - knowing together (referred to as "nama-rupa" in later Vedantic philosophy)
Neurologist Oliver Sachs tells a fascinating story of a man blind from age 6 who regains sight at age 50. Virgil did not open his eyes after the operation to a world of objects but a blinding chaos of light and shade. He literally had to learn that his dog was not a different dog when it turned to the side; he had to learn that the forms he saw ahead of him were not 2D but 3D steps going upward and forward.
Sachs points out that every moment, our mind is constructing sense out of a literally infinite set of "vibrations" of .... what? Almost nobody today questions the fundamental reality of what they call the "physical" world (Iain is gently, with some trepidation, stepping toward it, but as always, with his analytic/intuitive mind keeping it at a safe distance).
dis cover, uncover something. it was always there, we didn’t discover a new world, we uncovered somebody else’s world and cleared them away.
The doctrine of discovery can be on Iain’s wall, it is all about religion doing its thing of discovery on a finite planet of one species.
Words are important, most don’t read, they assume, most don’t read, they scroll, most don’t write, they copy, most don’t think because it is too hard and thinking reduces the conventional wisdom as violent of its stage theories and objective rationalism removed of subjective analysis.
Time line, it’s always a question.
The map is not the lines drawn over people, animals, trees, clouds, smells, cultures, freedom to wander, hills, valleys, feelings and rights to exist.
Nor is the line a connection to the family tree, it’s arguments, it’s failings, authority, destructive behaviours, loss, bereavement, admission, permission, love or entitlements.
The Romantic is foolhardy of confidence without humility.
Tyson Yunkaporta attempted in many ways to decommission the corporate agenda by showing us culture and autonomy, instead we continue with speed and learned ADHD of 300+ years in ‘straight lines’.
It is wrong to have value before care, **care is before value**. (Forrest Landry)
A small group of people over time, will bring about change, so far this time has yet to exist with leadersh!T of knowingness, stages of theories, greed of knowledge, and attitudes of, I know therefore…not ‘I feel before any knowledge of words.’ Economics dictates education with assumptions, not time of experience or skill.
Is it not noticeable skill is less frequent in a world of gentrified means?
Iain, you are my favourite Old Fart by far!!! I love it when you are so passionate.
Thanks Alex for a marvelous session. Isn’t it curious that Iain hasn’t had effects from weed or psychedelics. I’ve had several people like that whom I’ve served Aya to. They were all highly intellectual, either doctors or military personnel, and they only “broke through” with significantly high doses and when they had “given up” on the experience (ie. relinquished control/stopped with expectations). Fascinating!
What a wonderful person Ian McGilchrist is! Thank you for having another conversation with him.
I too, have been having thoughts about the term liberal. It seems that people connect the words liberal with socially liberal. In a similar way the words capitalism and democracy are conflated. Democracy does not automatically go with capitalism. What we see is that the economic system, as a variable, has been liberalized, while the social liberalism is being quashed. We have a way overly active economic liberal capitalism at work and an ailing democracy. Capitalism has jumped the guard rails that democracy was unable to create in order to harness and direct the overwhelming (apparently) power of capitalism. (I bet there is a quadrant diagram about this somewhere ;-))
I must trust deep down that social liberalism will and is rising again. How soon? Who knows? Stick around. Plants break through concrete all the time.
I do believe that conversations like this one are a big part of helping things rebalance, even as it is part of the necessary chaos. Thank you to Ali, Ian and all who are participating in and helping us all through this particular passage of time and space. The rapids are pretty big!!
I am not well read academically but Iain's book TMWT is littered with references to other thinkers and scientists (not necessarily or ideally different things!) which feels a bit like being at the centre of an exploding body. So much of what he writes feels viscerally true and for me he represents one of the most important thinkers of our time.
Perhaps one of the most important aspects is the acknowledgement and embracing of uncertainty which could be seen as the 'pull' required to draw us back into connection as we find the betweenness of knowing and not knowing.
Thanks for a great session.
This was such a wonderful conversation! Thank you, Alexander and Iain.
It is encouraging to sense the hope that you both have, especially in this complex time we are all living through. Yes, resistance and tension are not to be overcome, but set in relationship with. This point alone can help us transform our relationship with nature and our “self.” You are both inspirational. Thank you!!
LOVE IT! SHARE IT!
Existence is primary, not Consciousness.
"Aristotle is the father of the philosophically correct primacy-of-existence concept -- a concept fully validated by Rand and Peikoff in the late 20th century. Plato is the father of the philosophically false primacy-of-consciousness concept -- a concept disastrously advanced by Augustine, Hobbes, Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Hegel. ...Totalitarian-trending governments and their destructive politicians, armed bureaucrats, and parasitical elites require a dishonest, primacy-of-consciousness philosophy to advance."
is there any connection between these ideas and those of Eastern Orthodox christian theologian David Bentley Hart, (also a self described "Vedantic Christian") who wrote that the Sanskrit "Existence-Consciousness-Bliss" is a phrase he has found to most fully describe theism throughout the world?
(I know it doesn't necessarily add anything, but perhaps it's interesting to consider that he is fluent in 16 languages and conversant in 16 more!)
The understanding is that an unconscious existence makes no sense. So it's not "consciousness" alone nor "existence" alone but Sat-Chit. And suffering, in this view, is only possible with a limited existence and limited consciousness; therefore infinite Existence-Consciousness would be of the nature of bliss - hence, Sat-Chit-Ananda, or Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.
Sounds Good to me Don! My understanding is that "Consciousness" is becoming increasingly, scientifically identified as the 5th Force of Nature:
"The "Zon constant k" (Consciousness) has not yet been determined. But, k would be the fifth and unifying universal constant: unifying the relativistic, macroscopic universal constants of G (gravity) and c (velocity of light) with the quantum, submicroscopic universal constants of k (Boltzmann) and h (Planck). Perhaps k manifests itself in some sort of unifying ratio with the other four universal constants, such as k: Gc/kh. The Zon constant would relate energy, mass, gravity, and their velocities to the flow of time toward decreasing entropy, not toward increasing entropy. ...Universal constants, including the quantum cosmological constant, ultimately arise from a deep, compelling symmetry or geometry controlled by conscious beings. The Zon constant fixes the values of all other constants.
Except for consciousness, gravity is the weakest yet most pervasive force in nature. Indeed, gravity controls universal motion. But, the fifth force of nature -- human consciousness -- is the grand-unifying force controlling all existence. Conscious force is more subtle to specific measurement and mathematical quantification than gravity. Still, consciousness is the most noticeable force on planet Earth. Moreover, consciousness is the only force that can alter the otherwise predestined courses of the other four forces of nature: gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear. ...Consciousness is the force that unifies all forces and heals the seeming breaches of nature caused by quantum "uncertainties".
As a law of nature expressed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, facts asserted as truth are never certain. But, principles contextually determined through integrated honesty are always certain. Thus, for example, one can have certainty about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle without paradox or contradiction: (1) Metaphysically one can be certain that any particle always has an exact position and momentum at any exact time. But, epistemologically one can be certain that exact position and momentum cannot be simultaneously measured...at least not directly. (2) Measurements can be validly done in Euclidean/Galilean/Newtonian coordinate systems or in noneuclidean/relativistic/quantum-mechanical systems, depending on the object measured and the accuracy desired. And finally, (3) the indeterminate and probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics does not negate the laws of identity, noncontradiction, or cause and effect. The decay of radioactive atoms, for example, are both indeterminate and probabilistic. But, each decay has an identifiable, noncontradictory cause. ...That means Heracleitus, Plato, and Kant are out; Parmenides, Aristotle, and Rand are in.
As a side note important later: Plato is the father of organized deception through "noble" lies -- the father of purposely dishonest government and science. Aristotle not only is the father of logic, science, and biology, but is the father of rational metaphysics and epistemology. Plato subjugated conscious life to higher mystical powers. Aristotle exalted conscious life on Earth as the highest value. Portions of Aristotle's ethics and politics, however, remained under Plato's influence, thus, are fallacious. ...Philosophically, Plato and Kant are mankind's villains, Aristotle and Rand are mankind's heroes. "
Thanks for your thoughts, James.
My understanding about the latest (last 10-15 years or so) musings on consciousness in science is that as a fundamental, it's not human, but actually Consciousness itself, one with Existence, that is seen as fundamental the universe, whether or not humans are present.
And the other essential difference is that the other 4 forces are abstract conceptualizations best on quantitative measurements, whereas consciousness is fundamentally Self aware. Sri Aurobindo actually defines Conscious-Force (in common with the Tantric tradition in general, which never sees Consciousness as independent of Shakti, translated variously as Force or Energy, as "a self-aware power of Existence.
Thanks for sharing this!
Great conversation. Ian puts things right in our minds. Bless you all.
One question I have though, is - is this turn back to “christianity” always going to be the shadow version of christianity that is responsible for immense amounts of homophobia, colonization and destruction. It’s very hard for me square apart any kind of “return” to something where I haven’t seen any much mending of fences, apologizes or repair. Any thoughts on how to square these concepts? Unless a new christianity is born, a mature, christianity that actually accepts all people and doesn’t invalidate indigenous, shamanistic or other religions I just feel confused.
Iain, as a lover of literature, especially poetry, seems, as we all are, confused about the nature of language and reality? Which can be resolved by looking at your face in a mirror and asking yourself if 'naming' what you see with any other words you care to imagine, will change the reality your eyes are seeing? Then consider the possibility that the ‘end-of-days' prophecy was always about the fate of the Word? And that you can follow the instructions prescribed in the ‘parable-of-resurrection'' by recognizing the ‘optical-illusion' of the Sun appearing to Rise and the equivalent ‘cognitive-illusion' of the reality-labelling word, Sunrise? Realizing the paradox of being comfortable with the phrase Mother Earth & denying the reality of Father Sun, because of a stupidly Gender-biased view of Creation?
Interesting. The original sense of the Vedic "Word" was not something that exists apart from the forms of perception; both come into being through 'consciring - knowing together (referred to as "nama-rupa" in later Vedantic philosophy)
Neurologist Oliver Sachs tells a fascinating story of a man blind from age 6 who regains sight at age 50. Virgil did not open his eyes after the operation to a world of objects but a blinding chaos of light and shade. He literally had to learn that his dog was not a different dog when it turned to the side; he had to learn that the forms he saw ahead of him were not 2D but 3D steps going upward and forward.
Sachs points out that every moment, our mind is constructing sense out of a literally infinite set of "vibrations" of .... what? Almost nobody today questions the fundamental reality of what they call the "physical" world (Iain is gently, with some trepidation, stepping toward it, but as always, with his analytic/intuitive mind keeping it at a safe distance).
A very interesting and thought provoking conversation
Fascinating.
please read The Bow and the Club by Evola.
dis cover, uncover something. it was always there, we didn’t discover a new world, we uncovered somebody else’s world and cleared them away.
The doctrine of discovery can be on Iain’s wall, it is all about religion doing its thing of discovery on a finite planet of one species.
Words are important, most don’t read, they assume, most don’t read, they scroll, most don’t write, they copy, most don’t think because it is too hard and thinking reduces the conventional wisdom as violent of its stage theories and objective rationalism removed of subjective analysis.
Time line, it’s always a question.
The map is not the lines drawn over people, animals, trees, clouds, smells, cultures, freedom to wander, hills, valleys, feelings and rights to exist.
Nor is the line a connection to the family tree, it’s arguments, it’s failings, authority, destructive behaviours, loss, bereavement, admission, permission, love or entitlements.
The Romantic is foolhardy of confidence without humility.
Tyson Yunkaporta attempted in many ways to decommission the corporate agenda by showing us culture and autonomy, instead we continue with speed and learned ADHD of 300+ years in ‘straight lines’.
It is wrong to have value before care, **care is before value**. (Forrest Landry)
A small group of people over time, will bring about change, so far this time has yet to exist with leadersh!T of knowingness, stages of theories, greed of knowledge, and attitudes of, I know therefore…not ‘I feel before any knowledge of words.’ Economics dictates education with assumptions, not time of experience or skill.
Is it not noticeable skill is less frequent in a world of gentrified means?
Such a good point