I like the direction Tim's thinking has gone in. Still sounds like "panexperientialism" to me (ie, it is not consciousness that goes all the way down, but some more basal form of subjectivity). I especially appreciate his willingness to hold out for some form of post-mortem persistence of psyche. His view sounds a lot like Teilhard's. We gotta get Brendan over his hang ups! Up the dose!
Loving others by prioritizing helping others take their next best step of growth is the ultimate meaning in life, the essence of our Creator and Savior through us.
A fascinating conversation thank you. Post mortem survival touched on but issue of rebirth skirted. According to Tibetan Buddhism most souls cannot manage to remain on that imaginal level and attachment causes them to reach for another physical body. I'm guessing this might actually be covered in the book. But overall a stimulating addition to the conversation I was looking for a meta modern who unlike Vervaeke etc does not see emergence as meaning dependence on the physical level...
Thoroughly enjoyed this. Particularly appreciate watching, what I judge to be, an honest and earnest enquiry between two great thinkers - the following of intuitions (or the "lure", perhaps) - the conversation is relational emergence in action. Brendan, there's a great humility in your willingness to broaden your horizons (and your "hang ups" as you say!). Again, a model of emergent enquiry.
Thank you, for a particularly great episode. "everything is relationship" "all is process" Vipassana has led me to the exact same conclusions. It's always bolstering to hear folks *way* smarter than me stumbling upon similar axioms. 🌿🙏🌿
Deeply appreciate -- and in many parts deeply resonate -- with this dia-logos. Echos of western & eastern mystics, of Whitehead & Chardin ... Not sure i agree fully with some of the deeper axioms & conclusions. Would need to process more. Overall, deep gratitude & celebration. 🎉 Thank you both from the Bolivian Andes.
51:00 "Transcend and Include" has certainly been popularized by Wilber, but methinks he first found this idea reading Whitehead (see last full para. on p. 238 of "Process and Reality").
- [ ] Easier to conceive is an afterlife domain of technology built by intergalactic civilizations seeking immortality. Inevitable fights for resources is solved by agreeing to a unity mind Godhead in which fractalized selves with free will balance complexity and entropy and enforcing a Law against destruction by any subgroup. The universe is rebuilt with this core technology and ascension path.
I'd just got home from Wushu training, which has a central tenet of supernatural, like music, art, those things are supernatural. Mr Freke should try some Wushu training and expand his horizons. And his explanation on the oneness of consciousness is a basic of Buddhist culture, no?
Tim implies he’s not making a semantic or linguistic argument. But he’s doing just that- conflating terms which are widely agreed upon in philosophy of mind. If he claims Being is fundamental, he has two choices: either Being is a qualitative description or it’s not. If it’s not, then it’s a redundant and baseless argument, because he’s not really saying anything about the nature of being. He’s just replacing the word universal consciousness with Being. However, if “Being” is a qualitative description attributed to an entity (or the cosmos), then the technical term in philosophy is “phenomenal consciousness” which is the “what it’s likeness” quality. Being entails quality. Because to be is to exist. Tim makes the same mistake that most westerners make, conflating the term meta-consciousness with phenomenal consciousness. You don’t need to know THAT you’re conscious in order to BE conscious (pure consciousness event). Carl Jung solved this problem a long time ago with Answer to Job. Meta-consciousness is indeed emergent. Phenomenal consciousness, Infinite being, or God is pure undifferentiated raw experience without the meta-cognitive element. This is just one of a few holes in his philosophy IMHO.
The term 'phenomenal consciousness' (popularised in this philosophical context by Bernardo Kastrup with whom I have a conversation in my What Is Life? series) is very recent in philosophical discussions of these issues and I suggest confusing and inadequate when applied to the foundation of existence. If the foundation of existence exists I am sure we agree ... to has the primal quality of being. (if we can call that a 'quality'.) Is it also meaningful to say it is conscious in some way? If so then it has 2 qualities ... being and being conscious of itself. I suggest it doesn't have 2 qualities but rather that the ground is undifferentiated and becomes differentiated as the qualities of the universe. It will take the evolutionary process 14 billion years before it becomes conscious in any meaningful sense of the word.
@@TimFreke1 Thank you for the reply. I think the meta problem when it comes to consciousness is in defining it. You don’t like the term phenomenal consciousness so I’ll assume you don’t like the distinction between phenomenal and meta consciousness. Fair enough. For the sake of exploring the concept, let’s take meditation as an example. What is so liberating about the practice? Why is one so “at peace” in a meditative state? I would argue that it’s precisely the lack of duality or the absence of separation that reveals the “oneness” or the experience of unity. I’m sure you’re with me so far. But what is it that reveals the oneness? It’s the falling away of the seeker, or the separate self. In this case, it’s the dropping of meta-cognitive knowing into pure phenomenal knowing without a duality of subject-object (or without RE-representing the environment symbolically). The observer IS the observed. And this could only be revealed with the cessation of effort. What does this tell us about consciousness? That it is NO-thing. It cannot be grasped, defined or limited to any description. It is the ONE thing that has no apparent limitation, because it is precisely the subjective backdrop which allows for objectivity to arise. Consciousness is necessarily formless, empty, and void of content because it is the container which holds (without effort) all possibilities. This is not a tautology because consciousness is not reified as a “thing”. It is simply the empty space which remains when the mind ceases the movement of seeking. That consciousness is revealed only with the cessation of effort is the very evidence for its infinite nature. It cannot get any simpler than this.
@@spike1910 I hear you and would’ve agreed 10 years ago as you’ll find similar views in all my books but now I think I was wrong. I suggest there is no such thing as consciousness as an empty space. If you ideate that way, it is possible to experience it in that way as I did for many years and still can now if I choose to but if i ideate in a different way, my experience will change. My old way of ideating is inferior in my view now both experientially and philosophically
@@TimFreke1 I appreciate your display of courage, dropping away an identity that you invested in for so many years. Consistency is a virtue of small minds, and you exemplify that truth with your courage and willingness to die and be reborn willfully no matter the consequences. Today more than ever we need that kind of openness and flexibility to navigate the insane rate of informational change and epistemic crises. The last thing I would say is, if your experience of realizing consciousness as empty space entails any form of grasping, then it is still a meta-cognitive understanding. And while that may be useful in order to communicate your findings, it is not the means by which the sages directed us to explore. The beauty of the practice of meditation is that built into the practice, there is an efficient mechanism of filtering out narratives and biases. And that is: enlightenment is realized only in stillness and in silence. It would be an honor to engage with you in person. I’ll be on the lookout to see if you make your way up to North America in the near future :)
- [ ] Easier to conceive is an afterlife domain of technology built by intergalactic civilizations seeking immortality. Inevitable fights for resources is solved by agreeing to a unity mind Godhead in which fractalized selves with free will balance complexity and entropy and enforcing a Law against destruction by any subgroup. The universe is rebuilt with this core technology and ascension path.
Wonderful conversation!
This is a great conversation! You guys really hit it off and obviously resonate with each other and it helps parse out these ideas.
I like the direction Tim's thinking has gone in. Still sounds like "panexperientialism" to me (ie, it is not consciousness that goes all the way down, but some more basal form of subjectivity). I especially appreciate his willingness to hold out for some form of post-mortem persistence of psyche. His view sounds a lot like Teilhard's. We gotta get Brendan over his hang ups! Up the dose!
Excited for this! Tim’s TED talk had an important influence on me years ago (2018-ish) at the beginning of my Kairos.
Time accumulates!
This was brilliant, Brendan. Thank you for holding and sharing space.
Loving others by prioritizing helping others take their next best step of growth is the ultimate meaning in life, the essence of our Creator and Savior through us.
PART 2 PLEASE ❤🙏☯️
A fascinating conversation thank you. Post mortem survival touched on but issue of rebirth skirted. According to Tibetan Buddhism most souls cannot manage to remain on that imaginal level and attachment causes them to reach for another physical body. I'm guessing this might actually be covered in the book. But overall a stimulating addition to the conversation I was looking for a meta modern who unlike Vervaeke etc does not see emergence as meaning dependence on the physical level...
Thoroughly enjoyed this. Particularly appreciate watching, what I judge to be, an honest and earnest enquiry between two great thinkers - the following of intuitions (or the "lure", perhaps) - the conversation is relational emergence in action. Brendan, there's a great humility in your willingness to broaden your horizons (and your "hang ups" as you say!). Again, a model of emergent enquiry.
Loved it. Fantastic thanks 🎉
Thank you, for a particularly great episode.
"everything is relationship"
"all is process"
Vipassana has led me to the exact same conclusions. It's always bolstering to hear folks *way* smarter than me stumbling upon similar axioms. 🌿🙏🌿
Deeply appreciate -- and in many parts deeply resonate -- with this dia-logos.
Echos of western & eastern mystics, of Whitehead & Chardin ...
Not sure i agree fully with some of the deeper axioms & conclusions. Would need to process more.
Overall, deep gratitude & celebration. 🎉 Thank you both from the Bolivian Andes.
51:00 "Transcend and Include" has certainly been popularized by Wilber, but methinks he first found this idea reading Whitehead (see last full para. on p. 238 of "Process and Reality").
- [ ] Easier to conceive is an afterlife domain of technology built by intergalactic civilizations seeking immortality. Inevitable fights for resources is solved by agreeing to a unity mind Godhead in which fractalized selves with free will balance complexity and entropy and enforcing a Law against destruction by any subgroup. The universe is rebuilt with this core technology and ascension path.
I'd just got home from Wushu training, which has a central tenet of supernatural, like music, art, those things are supernatural. Mr Freke should try some Wushu training and expand his horizons. And his explanation on the oneness of consciousness is a basic of Buddhist culture, no?
Thanks for the advice. As it happens I have written a number of books on Buddhism along with most other spiritual traditions. Glad you enjoy Wishu.
As David Loy says... The World is Made of Stories.
Tim implies he’s not making a semantic or linguistic argument. But he’s doing just that- conflating terms which are widely agreed upon in philosophy of mind. If he claims Being is fundamental, he has two choices: either Being is a qualitative description or it’s not. If it’s not, then it’s a redundant and baseless argument, because he’s not really saying anything about the nature of being. He’s just replacing the word universal consciousness with Being.
However, if “Being” is a qualitative description attributed to an entity (or the cosmos), then the technical term in philosophy is “phenomenal consciousness” which is the “what it’s likeness” quality.
Being entails quality. Because to be is to exist.
Tim makes the same mistake that most westerners make, conflating the term meta-consciousness with phenomenal consciousness. You don’t need to know THAT you’re conscious in order to BE conscious (pure consciousness event).
Carl Jung solved this problem a long time ago with Answer to Job. Meta-consciousness is indeed emergent. Phenomenal consciousness, Infinite being, or God is pure undifferentiated raw experience without the meta-cognitive element.
This is just one of a few holes in his philosophy IMHO.
The term 'phenomenal consciousness' (popularised in this philosophical context by Bernardo Kastrup with whom I have a conversation in my What Is Life? series) is very recent in philosophical discussions of these issues and I suggest confusing and inadequate when applied to the foundation of existence.
If the foundation of existence exists I am sure we agree ... to has the primal quality of being. (if we can call that a 'quality'.) Is it also meaningful to say it is conscious in some way? If so then it has 2 qualities ... being and being conscious of itself.
I suggest it doesn't have 2 qualities but rather that the ground is undifferentiated and becomes differentiated as the qualities of the universe. It will take the evolutionary process 14 billion years before it becomes conscious in any meaningful sense of the word.
@@TimFreke1 Thank you for the reply. I think the meta problem when it comes to consciousness is in defining it. You don’t like the term phenomenal consciousness so I’ll assume you don’t like the distinction between phenomenal and meta consciousness. Fair enough.
For the sake of exploring the concept, let’s take meditation as an example. What is so liberating about the practice? Why is one so “at peace” in a meditative state? I would argue that it’s precisely the lack of duality or the absence of separation that reveals the “oneness” or the experience of unity. I’m sure you’re with me so far.
But what is it that reveals the oneness? It’s the falling away of the seeker, or the separate self. In this case, it’s the dropping of meta-cognitive knowing into pure phenomenal knowing without a duality of subject-object (or without RE-representing the environment symbolically). The observer IS the observed. And this could only be revealed with the cessation of effort.
What does this tell us about consciousness? That it is NO-thing. It cannot be grasped, defined or limited to any description. It is the ONE thing that has no apparent limitation, because it is precisely the subjective backdrop which allows for objectivity to arise.
Consciousness is necessarily formless, empty, and void of content because it is the container which holds (without effort) all possibilities.
This is not a tautology because consciousness is not reified as a “thing”. It is simply the empty space which remains when the mind ceases the movement of seeking.
That consciousness is revealed only with the cessation of effort is the very evidence for its infinite nature. It cannot get any simpler than this.
@@spike1910 I hear you and would’ve agreed 10 years ago as you’ll find similar views in all my books but now I think I was wrong.
I suggest there is no such thing as consciousness as an empty space.
If you ideate that way, it is possible to experience it in that way as I did for many years and still can now if I choose to but if i ideate in a different way, my experience will change.
My old way of ideating is inferior in my view now both experientially and philosophically
@@TimFreke1 I appreciate your display of courage, dropping away an identity that you invested in for so many years. Consistency is a virtue of small minds, and you exemplify that truth with your courage and willingness to die and be reborn willfully no matter the consequences. Today more than ever we need that kind of openness and flexibility to navigate the insane rate of informational change and epistemic crises.
The last thing I would say is, if your experience of realizing consciousness as empty space entails any form of grasping, then it is still a meta-cognitive understanding. And while that may be useful in order to communicate your findings, it is not the means by which the sages directed us to explore. The beauty of the practice of meditation is that built into the practice, there is an efficient mechanism of filtering out narratives and biases. And that is: enlightenment is realized only in stillness and in silence.
It would be an honor to engage with you in person. I’ll be on the lookout to see if you make your way up to North America in the near future :)
@@spike1910 thank you my friend - oh and no grasping involved 😀
- [ ] Easier to conceive is an afterlife domain of technology built by intergalactic civilizations seeking immortality. Inevitable fights for resources is solved by agreeing to a unity mind Godhead in which fractalized selves with free will balance complexity and entropy and enforcing a Law against destruction by any subgroup. The universe is rebuilt with this core technology and ascension path.