Видео

I recently discovered McGilchrist and really want to read his double volume great work. I just got DBH’s new book and so excited to get into it. Also reading Charles Taylor’s new Cosmic Connections. It’s a great time of great books. Just need Sheldrake to put out some kind of great new masterwork and I will feel complete…

Very sorry for your loss, but it's good to see you on here. I pray for you and your family. Go Orioles.⚾

But we have always had this problem, especially within our religions. In Buddhism, we have scriptural literalists who take horrendous ideas as the sacred “word” of the Buddha, and we pass it down as unchangeable and infallible. The same in the western traditions. AI is now doing the same in the secular world, honing in on the most popular (and usually, least humane) aspects of society and making the horrendous and the abominable seem good and blessed. The majority has always been drawn to that which is expedient and the least impeding. A.I. has just made us consciously (self-consciously?) aware of this tendency. I think you underestimate the ability of human beings to cope with the malignancies that all innovations usher in. We’ve been doing it since the caves were our palaces. Westerners seem predisposed toward pessimism and display an almost natural inclination toward despair, gloominess, and pearl-clutching. Is it the religion or the culture? PS regarding animal suffering being a bourgeois concern - it should be. If you can afford to be concerned about the suffering of animals, then it is a moral responsibility to do so. There is no reason wealthy people should be slaughtering animals other than self indulgence.

Some writers good ones say that they not write mediocre text but what they do is so far distant from common people that they just write for themself and other writers like them.

1:25:00 to 1:30:00 A brilliant, humble response from Iain. I really like him. Thank you for posting this.

How did it happen that Nicea and Palamism contradict each other? No one in the Orthodox world from the 14th century onwards noticed that? Nicea and St. Gregory are such fundamental pillars of the Church one would think we would have cleared this up? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

Grateful ! What a conversation between Eugene and David wow so many big words didn’t matter. I still understood it !!! Plus their history knowledge… I’ll take a script of this, but I don’t have a printer so I’ll just watch it again. I’m kind of the repetitive type thank you thank you David and Eugene.

An excellent conversation, thanks guys! As a physicist, working for decades in IT industry but still in touch with my beloved physics and yet with body oriented psychotherapeutical training and some zazen practice as a background i find difficult sometimes to talk with molecular biologists and moreover doctors, neuro folks ... basically people with engineering style of background, about what s actual picture of world (and us within) because underlying naive reductionism and determinism. I would say after quantum revolution and relativistic shift of paradigm, still from different reason, it s not an easy task to comprehend how profoundly picture of the world changed. I would completely agree on Philip s remark that trying to use classical analogies makes things worse - they re producing a lot of illusion of understanding. What we would say about deterministic materialistic dogmatism when our best - in terms of experimental based corroboration - theoretical model is quantum field theory which provides us with unified mechanism for matter and interactions - just different degrees of freedom? Symmetries, quantum description, potentionality - these are correct words to talk in. What seems for us as basic emerges out of level of understanding. Watching carefully into the structure as Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen stated and Schrodinger pinpointed decompose our notion of "reality" to something much more interesting. To talk about this, of course, requires new language and in popular way other stories you mentioned repeatedly- which i do not see around yet, even when models are many decades old now. And people like David Mermin in his Oppenheimer lecture tries hard i guess ruclips.net/video/ta09WXiUqcQ/видео.htmlsi=ObyQSbtFV6p5Pjzb. Anyway, whenever dogmatic reductionists tries hard they inevitably ends - if they are honest - on level of basic physics. And that ends up with dynamics - time, space, matter, causation. Quite interesting is to reflect upon shift in understanding of causation as discussed - with appreciation of Nagarjuna s philosophy - by Carlo Rovelli in this seminar in Yale ruclips.net/video/jCRBmRp7eLs/видео.htmlsi=zSkBJ6NZqfr8Polt. Speaking of understanding information in actual physics laws - they are already there. In fact modern understanding of information in our world comes from work of Ludwig Boltzmann and many more great minds. Still we tends to interpret - maybe because it s used in very reduced and primitive way in our information technologies and popularized in this way. But in clear way fundamentality of information is mentioned by Nobel prize laureate Anton Zeilinger speech ruclips.net/video/ct2uWbI2vF8/видео.htmlsi=ZCA3SahTbQZfX4lg . I m greatful that you re vocal about usual dogmas and misinterpretations and "myths" of biologists, doctors or neuroscientists, which has nothing to do with actual science still hardcoded in education and popularisation of many kind. I would say that interplay between empirical emergent level (when i talk with client about his experience e.g.) and this "understanding" which tries to "explain" and reduce rich phenomenal stuff (like neuroscientist tries reduce psychological phenomenons just to electrical states of brain which they could measure) in any cost to relatively primitive mechanical model which as we know ultimately can t work, seems to me like bizzare religious way to protect the belief. Anyway, i will recommend this discussion to anybody who wants to step beyond popular dogmas and stay on serious level of understanding.

Mr. Hart is a great teacher, a man of wisdom, a sage; he is much needed in our times. I think he's truly earned that Wise Man beard he wears. His ability to dialectically weave between questions of the social and the materiality then questions of spirit and the "mystical" is really beautiful and shows an expansive mind. He can be long-winded, grandiloquent, acidic, and sometimes I think his tone is somewhat patronizing, but any great teacher of the mysteries can be excused that, I believe.

I loved this discussion. I'm interested, do you think that the concept of the monad in Leibniz might be a fruitful basis for further exploration? I feel like it might be, especially concerning three elements: 1. Substance isn't passive and merely acted upon, but instead a movement as such, with information and matter being intrinsically linked, therefore escaping the "intelligent design"-trap of deism and a cartesian ghost in the machine. 2. It escapes determinism/libertarian dichotomy just as much as the mechanical/teleological dichotomy by identifying the monad as a perspectivist projection of the whole (the harmony of the parts and the whole is guaranteed through the fact that every monad is indirectly connected through God with every other monad) 3. It can harmonize top-down models and bottom-up models, because the organism is hylomorphic. Neither soul nor body take precedent. This also allows the affirmation of identity as an unstable process, while remaining a real expression of the eternal soul. Of course the concept needs some overhaul. In some key aspects, Leibniz remains to much committed to the mechanical philosophy of his time (understandable, considering its explanatory power) and therefore makes the distance between matter and soul too great, instead of conceiving of matter as inherently agential. But i still think there is a lot of useful concepts in Leibniz. Another question: Do you see value in Karen Barad and their concept of agential materialism? I think, they offer some promising ideas which might be usefully applied to concepts like the incarnation that should be fleshed out (Catherine Keller already engaged to some extent with their ideas, but not to a large extent)

What if there isn’t an exactly defined prearranged order, rather there is an infinite free will with infinite possibility and that the causality which we could grasp and strive for is beauty. and that the fields in which we interact rely upon the matter of our intentions in order to unlock the secret of their existence and our future existence. I’m studying this myself and my writings are termed infinite field boundaries and i believe there are more and more being shown to us with each passing year.

One of your best interviews! Thank you!

A wonderful conversation.

😆🤝 my man dwight

30:15

Comparing gravity to magnetism as formative agents i find that gravity has attraction whereas magnetism has attraction repulsion and orientation. Electrical charge fields such as in plasma are also formative, producing helix and vortex patterns and are thought by some to be responsible for galaxy formation. Matter Energy Patterns - all there is. Or Energy Patterns and matter is a wave energy phenomena .

Hello, Thank you for this very intriguing conversation. Does anyone know if there are any published articles about fields as formal causes?

That tendency to return to the Root in matter is literally its uroboros fate and origins as well. Matter is frozen/fallen/imprisoned light, and we are experiencing its zest to become Light in the form of our souls, to become photonic, i.e., timeless and weightless, again. Matter is the actual "self-expression" and "self-exploration" of light, and the whole story of the cosmos is the journey of light to itself, the Light. As de Broglie found out, light is the most refined form of matter! then What's going on? A passage between photonic epoch to photonic epoch. All is Light, exploring IT-self.

Somebody forward this to the insufferable Jay Dyer

we need David Bentey Hart on Hot Ones

1:03:43 (the topic of love) Where can we learn more abut love being a power, love is a correctly scientific ontology? I want to follow DBH on that thread of thought. I found that very fascinating. I want to study the argument that love is a real force.

34:00 - my comment as a VFX artist. Some film makers use the same crew and use film instead of digital because they wanted to maintain the friendships and personal connections to craftsman and subject matter experts. We live in a hyper pragmatic age where there is a huge attempt to replace artists with a button that shits out results. My brother and I agree that art isn't just about the end product but the relationships made and the sharing between each-other in making the art.

the idea that interactions lose no energy in reaction is flawed, its only imperceptible due to the scale of difference, the earth does move a minute amount and lose or gain a infinitesimal portion of its momentum on absorbing an asteroid, change the ratio of difference to see that effect. likewise the magnet does lose power of around 1% per year when under HIGH load, a piece of paper in this case is the same scale of difference as the asteroid vs earth, the mechanism is well over build, change the scale to notice the loss. so what is happening? i think the magnets are energized by their environment and would not be magnetic if taken out of the ionic wind of our sun or that which feeds it (EU model plasma-cosmology). we cant forget we are always being fed from interstellar currents thru the solar relay, it is a material function which is active only when interacting with a specific field. the source is the forever unknowable, that which is and gives way to what is. to test this you would have to send a satellite out to deep space, where there would be very little energy flow, with a magnet but if youre in a spot with no flow itll be a tricky thing to communicate the results. not to mention it might take millennia to reach an appropriate location... its hard to imagine thatll get done.

This conversation brought me quite a lot of joy.

David, why does the Church use adoption language if man is always already both divine and human by nature (i.e., inherently christic)? Aren't we by nature as Christ quotes, "gods, sons of the Most High"?

41:22 bookmark

Understand Leibnitz know what gravity is...

Why does no one talk about Leibnitz???

What Hart mentioned concerning paratactic views of information as inadequate for a satisfactory information theory was a recent study on AI to where the less input an AI program such as Chat GPT receives from anything other than itself, chiefly human content, the less reliable and the less coherent it becomes. In short, even information theory presumes a top down entelechy or intentionality that cannot be reduced to a mechanistic, paratactic, expression.

17:12 "From this vantage one might justly say that it is nature that functions as the principle of limitation and individuation for Person, and not the reverse". 💥💯 23:09 bookmark

Very good indeed to hear this discussion and the quality and clarity of thinking voiced

36:49 bookmark

Brilliant, really hope a book will be forthcoming!

21:03 Palamas

21:40 Palamism

"Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent." Thus, in terms of theological knowing anyway, I am neither of Paul nor Apollo, but of Wittgenstein.

Attraction dominates... the most succinct statement I've heard that appears to summarize the final reconciliation of Creation with our triune god.

This is the more comprehensive one.

So much valuable information shared in less than 40 minutes, time for dinner. Too many 2 to 4 hour podcasts that should have stopped for dinner....

Fields are artifacts. They are the artifact of flows in space. Gravity is the prime mover. Gravity creates flows in dielectric super fluid space. Flows in a dielectric create charge separation. A hydrodynamic model can evolve all QFT.

Thank you David for these wonderful lectures. If your reading of Rowan and Jordan is correct, then I am with you and this advances my understanding a good deal in terms of weaving hypostasis and ousia in Christ together with Nicene trinitarian thought AND with creatio ex nihilo and participation (theosis from creation to eschaton through the Son, in the Father’s Loving Embrace/Spirit). I do wish that Cambridge would have managed to get better sound quality on these as there is much that you and others are saying that is very difficult to understand. Nevertheless, thank you so much for these profound gifts.

Hello Sirs, Thanks for TALK and sharing 💞 🤔🧐 🙃🙂 🤗🎉🤗 👣🌌

thanks

Fantastic

Thanks. Can't wait to get the book

Thanks so much for this vastly improved audio!

Man I wish the audio were better. So hard to follow, and of course when you miss even one word in a sentence on these sorts of lectures, you can miss the whole point.

I love continental philosophy DBH but I REALLY love Christian theologian and translator DBH!

Is there a pdf transcription (actual) of these presentations?

".....the fields of living ....." Songs from Liquid Days: No. 5, Liquid Days, Pt. 2, Open the Kingdom Lyrics by David Byrne