@@ograzebrook That's really extraordinary, and very often true in much of human communication. We can use the tools to really expose our true feelings, but it can be amazingly difficult especially when it comes to being understood
We are still living in this capitalist existence, therefore money is still essential. Don't make money, don't have food or a place to live. It's pretty simple.
I keep coming back to this interview as the sanest perspective I have ever heard. Whenever I get frustrated by identity politics, polarized politics, or Western ideology I listen to Tyson's earthy wisdom and feel grounded again.
"Every theory is wrong but it can be useful in certain contexts". That fits well with Integral philosophy...He's right about over-emphasis on outliers too.
Whoa !!! This was one of the best interviews that I have listened to. Intelligent and easy to comprehend without any numbo-jumbo convoluted talk, just to scramble our heads and make the talker seem all-knowledgeable. I think that our “ability to adapt” is our golden key, even in our worst traumas. By the way, that laugh was pure gold. I will definitely look out for this speaker again. Thank you 🙏🏻
I listened to see if the video title "Indigenous thinking" would be something about living day to day, a whole lot different than modern living/mindset? Ahhh, too much Phd talk for me on this interview. Here at camp bulalayaw, we combine Kapwa and a bit of Kapu Aloha and combine it with the 10 principles of burning man and even a good dose of the four agreements (Toltec) and push it all in community living in our modern structure. People have paying part time jobs, but spend a lot of time building up the village. Grow gardens and forest manage and have council circles, fitness, wellness, and chores. Lots of chores.
Building strong communities will be paramount to making real world change, I believe. It won't happen though, until we convince everyone that building strong communities leads to independence from government rule. When we are a strong community, that connects & interacts, with other strong local communities, we will have no problem defunding big business & demanding government reform, in the form of Citizen's Assemblies. Real working class people, of all races, making decisions regarding issues of local & national importance, with OUR best interests at heart, not to the benefit of big business, fat cats, media moguls, mining magnates, pharma vampires, bankers or tech pioneers. They can't threaten us with cutting off food supply, energy or water, because we will have planned & have enough within our communities to sustain us all. It's amazing that you, & many other communities around the world, have built something amazing. Now we just need to wake up all the Zombies, glued to the news & media & following it's every command. Once we break that connection, we might just achieve real change. Cheers from Australia.
I think you shouldn't characterise philosophy as phd talk, especially as you abide by toltec philosophy via the four agreements. All views are valid in fostering the conditions for healthy adaption as a species.... I think that's the general message here
@@ograzebrook It's talk without action. Yes, there are lots of types of knowledge and they have value. If you're not going to live differently it's just Phd talk. On paper it sounds great but having a one-on-one convo about why someone left the gate open to the garden and rabbits ate everything is another thing. Transformation will be when humans decide to live in a grounded fashion which no one wants to do because game theory.
@@zachferdinand6633 I suppose it depends how far removed one is from food production and how much their basic needs are being met (ie Maslow). If you are in the business of farming, not much time for philosophy. I wish you well.
An engaging and important interview. Can’t say I agreed with him about everything but the principle of “emergence” is the right idea, I think. The old fashioned term for that is “surrender”. As in relinquishing control. Again very valuable episode. Thanks RW! 👍
I know we are very “woke” in this channel but I’ll say it for you. Fat block of over here is smart about emergence but laugh his racism off on any other attempts of cultural know how. 🧐😒 indigenous my foot.
I love Tyson Yonkaporta. His ability to weave the nuanced interconnectedness while maintaining a sense of humour while being self-deprecating while maintaining reverence is a direct reflection of the complicated interconnectedness of the universe he talks about.
He wasn’t saying generalizing and critiquing was idiotic, it’s parroting a narrow one sided snippet from one singular perspective that he was pointing out as idiotic. He’s advocating pluralism and a integral framework I believe.
You tube has gone too far with the ads. I can't stand being interrupted by the same ad every 5 minutes while trying to pay attention to this important talk. Please upload to spotify!
I think rebel wisdom themselves decided to put this amount on the video. It's truly obnoxious. 10 minutes in and I'm done. (I'm listening while falling asleep and the ads are so loud and jarring, sorry for the grump.)
I was just listening to JBP’s biblical lecture on Cain and able and he was saying that sometimes when things go sideways it’s because you need to re-evaluate your value system because what you are narrowly attending to as your top values are what is causing the shitty situation to unfold the way it is. He went on to say that if this is the case then we must be willing to do the tough thing now and sacrifice what we were attached to in order to fix it. What I hear from Tyson Yunkaporta is that civilization’s values are off. That a natural law or some unnamed practical wisdom is what reasserts itself naturally when the upholding of the dominant modern mode is absent. And that is reminiscent of a passage from the Tao Te Ching that talks about how ‘virtues’ like piety and patriotism arise when the conditions of society degenerate. If it was not degenerate in the first place we would not need to make a special effort to correct it. And that circles back to what Tyson is saying is that everyone adding in their idiotic criticisms and solutions amounts to another hand on the steering wheel that nobody has any control over. I like Tyson’s attitude more than anything he says which is really pretty dismissive and a bit cagey, while he does a good job of criticizing what is wrong, like many others he is certainly not trying to ‘save the world’ with ideas or words as the subtitle to the video suggests. He’s like I should be doing work right now rather that dreaming up yarns, but I will chat with you for a bit. It’s a perspective informed from a culture independent of the one being discussed. I put more value on his perspective than most others on Rebel Wisdom. You need a perspective different than the one which created the problem as A. Einstein says. I love this new tack R. Wisdom.
Yeah but it doesn't sound like he even owns up to the shit of his own culture. Statistics do matter.. At least when done correctly they do present indeniable truths.. Which he still denies.
Agent Smith, My point is that nobody has all the answers. When we are open, vulnerable, honest and willing to listen with curiosity then we can go places we have not before and even if that new explored territory ends up being a false construct it will be noted as such. I have read and am sympathetic to the original way of human life. I believe there is massive explanatory power in the story about the old order vs. the new order and I am coming at this from having done deep study of it. If one believes the narrative that the ancient ways of being are outdated and we have been evolving in the right direction away from them (using technological advances and standards of living as a justification) then it’s totally proper to dismiss this perspective from the old order. However if you believe as I do that civilization has taken a wrong turn or that it is even just wrong fundamentally than the perspective of the old order is very valuable. I encourage you to stretch and grow and consider that we all may be mistaken to a significant degree. I don’t consider this man to have all the answers and he does not say he does. The valuable thing he offers is a frame, a critical frame that points out the flaws. I don’t want to make too much of Tyson it’s my first exposure to him but his views I’m sympathetic to. You may disagree of course and really I’m not out to change anyone’s mind. So this more for anyone open to explore the issues he’s raising. But it is confusing to find such a narrow rigid simplistic view being expressed here since the space R.W. Opened up is not about tossing in our simplistic reductionist comments. All that being said I find this interview itself simplistic- tell me how to save our society wise indigenous man. It’s premature to offer solutions until the error is clear.
@Michael Nice - I am so glad that you took the time to put down your view in words. I am of the same mind but was unable to articulate my ideas in the calm but firm manner that you did, thus making it clear that you have no intention of changing people’s minds. I have been called “naive” but I am at peace with that because it allows me to maintain a sense of curiosity regarding everything surrounding me. Thank you 🙏🏻
Indira, This view I express is the least naive I can imagine. It’s a blend of 4 teachings. William Bramley who wrote God’s of Eden, Daniel Quinn who wrote Ishmael, Robert Monroe who wrote Far Journeys, and Ramana Maharshi who lived as a enlightened man with integrity. Each has offered a very potent truth in seed form that has grown to inform me. Quinn’s view is most relevant to this conversation. My take on this conversation is we want to know where we went wrong, so we can correct it. In my view everything every human on earth does is both absolutely perfect and absolutely wrong. Perfect because reality is perfection and the dream is imperfection. The point of the dream is to indulge in the feeling and experience of wrongness. When we wake up we realize nothing was ever wrong. So it really does not matter at all what we do, it will always be wrong, but not really wrong. The only noble, perfect and wholesome aim is to recognize our original true nature as perfection itself and attempt to embody that. All compassion and wisdom flow automatically from there. Trying to cultivate it from the position of the false self is a wild goose chase. That is why all this activity, inventions etc, will be bound to make conditions worse. The naive part comes when one believes that a large amount of people will seek their true self or that all this activity in the mind and with our hands will lead to better conditions or improvements. The value of being human is of believing something is wrong, really wrong. The value of being a immortal spiritual being comprised of pure consciousness is self sufficiency. The dream of human life provides the one thing that consciousness lacks. I believe it was like this from the beginning of life, and becomes more and more so all the time. I believe that it is magic, secret societies and aliens that keep this unlikely project going. In the conventional sense I see what will help most right now is if people slowed down, unplugged and eased off collectively. A sort of rejection of modern and postmodern life, going back to simple sustainable and independent rugged individualism and tight community. Everything is moving and changing so fast, but I don’t expect that path to be very heavily travelled. We are all excited about the goodies we can get when we support a globalist technocracy. If makes me sick just like Tyson I see the project of civilization as false simply because it does not deliver on its promises, it enslaves us and gets us to participate in our own captivity and domestication. The reason I don’t care if anyone thinks as I do about these things is the forces which make this dreamworld happen are too far along with all this, nothing can stop them now and it’s all a bad dream, no matter what we do so just start contrasting it with waking perfection and attend to that. That’s all we can do. Then our actions may begin to exhibit more wisdom and compassion naturally. The beauty of the way some native free tribal people lived is that they limited their engagement with the world to only what was necessary and they honored the sacred spirit that flows in all things. That is a recipe for success in my opinion.
" All those people who think they can come up with a new system, they're idiots." Said from a different frame. We can't fix this one either, just go back natural law. But he sidestepped the issue of how to take care of everyone who is already here. Indigenous ways require alot of area to support relatively few people, the way of natural law. Natural law, subsistence farming, permaculture, and similar practices won't feed 8 billion mouths.
I think this idea of centralised power being corruptible which he touches on is largely accepted and for the first time in our society (that I’m aware of) we’re creating systems to push power to the edges and back to the people, for example decentralised technology like community managed social media, community run crypto and blockchain. This feels like he best way to overcome the overarching flaw of our system.
This is so refreshing! Deconstruction that reconstructs by advocating not throwing the baby out with the bath water, and honouring different systems of knowledge. The observation that indigenous wisdom is related to place seems to me to be the healing needed for Western disembodied heads. We need to become a ‘somewhere’ since being an ‘anywhere’ too often means being a ‘nowhere’ and moving on, leaving a trail of destruction for the ‘somewheres’ to deal with. For an excellent article on this topic, see The Banquet of Whiteness by Charles Eisenstein.
J.P.s whole contribution would be: being overtly self-confident, looking serious, looking angry, then dismissing everything the other person says as "postmodern Stalinist bullshit-propaganda". He would of course mention the Gulag-archipelago, C.G. Jung, Carl Rogers, Dostoevsky and mainly the Bible. At the end and/or during the discussion he would cry.
I think most of us here are already on board with the critiques. _Most!_ We still have to be checked from time to time because I'm looking at a big push to form a new and better top-down strategy to solve problems again with seemingly zero awareness that the process of forming such ideas inside insular clubs of white males has gotten us into this disaster in the first place... 😞 But! For those of us who are self-aware of this, how do we go forward? I like his idea about letting a team of Arabs have a go at the experiment to see if it gets the same results! I'm thinking that this would be helpful to do with all unique cultures. But how do you deal with the problem of some of those cultures being explicitly top-down, male-dominated, totalitarian, oppressive, deceptive and comfortable with rewarding compliance with riches (what we might call "corrupt", but I'm trying to use neutral language)? He is also Contexted. And some of his Context agrees with ours. What about those who don't agree with our shared contexts of flattened hierarchies and good stewardship of the earth and nature? I've been working with the idea that we need boundaries to keep Contexts that differ in similar ways separated. But these boundaries will be penetrated and then there are wars and then the strong end up being at the top and it all goes to shit again. How do we *_really_* solve this?
To change anything in this crazy runaway civilisation, we need to change the way we do things. This requires a decisive move away from systems thinking, away from accepting the inevitability of multi-tiered social power hierarchies or simplified cause and effect hierarchies, which may be a highly effective way of viewing the world and going about our business, but is inefficient in the extreme and wholly unsustainable. Systems thinking is incapable of integrating with the complex and often incomprehensible nature of both humans and the natural environment. In its overuse, it has proven to be a dysfunctional and highly destructive way of organising our lives. To my mind, the new beginnings are based on platform thinking (Platform = level playing field). There are plenty of examples in societies and communities around the world of this being a much more efficient and biodiverse approach, in tune with all the interacting effects and side-effects present in an interconnected world. Indeed, I believe it to be the only viable approach capable of not only sustaining life, but of helping it flourish, by virtue of humans learning to integrate co-creatively ...with everything within ourselves, ...and with everything out and about of us. Platform thinking can be based on the following tenets: - An integrating approach, where even the littlest voice is not only heard, but necessary to complete the circle of insight and understanding. - An approach, where individuals no longer accept subordination. - An approach, where abuse of power arising from people associating is recognised as a systemic threat to the community platform, as well as to the environment. - An approach, where applied systems, theories, beliefs and narratives instead are kept subordinate to the integrating platform and to the well-being of community and natural surroundings. -An approach that balances tradition and innovation, nurture and risk-taking (exploring natural limits and thus avoiding stagnation), doing and being. -An approach that discourages ownership and encourages custodianship based on biodiverse life affirming activity. -An approach that builds on personal fulfilment (autonomy) and expression (mastery) and enables mutual aid (purpose). * * * * *
Thanks for sharing that. I would love to learn more about platform thinking, so if you have any specific groups or websites you can point me to, I'd appreciate it.
"As the custodial species of our planet, it's our unique gift to be able to adapt." How do we adapt? It seems the first step is to open ourselves. It seems we come back to the idea of individual responsibility.
THE EMERGENT WORLD In an emergent world, we constantly find ourselves somewhere between the formed and unformed. This, our world, is purely dynamic. It never stops. It is where life in all its facets develops, mutates, and evolves, ...every moment of every day. So how do we experience this world? It is not through thinking, that's for sure. From modern computer technology we know that all information can be expressed digitally in the binary system of 'one' and 'zero', that is to say in the cognitive system of 'it is' or 'it is not'. Thus, information could be subdivided into 'formed' and 'unformed'. Clearly, the binary world-view of information is severely limited, as there exists a whole quantum world of possibility and probability between the two core values of either being or not being. Being neither one nor the other, but being transformative, being in flux, this area of our lives is often felt to be intangible. The trouble is that - due to their binary nature - cognitive thought processes can neither truly express nor access the quantum world. At best, they can only simulate it. This simulation takes place in the conceptual mind and creates for us a model of reality that endeavours to predict how reality works. It is a kind of forecasting system. The conceptual world is therefore never more than a virtual reality; it is no replacement for the real thing. So how do our minds compute or navigate the flowing dynamics of the world we daily experience? What do we do, when the dynamics are too fast or complex for our minds to rationally compute or we find ourselves in novel situations we've never before experienced? This is where our intuitive capacities step in. However, any personal experience of this will soon make it clear that our intuitive mind can only be accessed, when we temporarily let go of our concepts and fears, which all reside in the cognitive mind. For most of us, this is not at all easy. Many find it hard to let go of a life's worth of conditioning. To my mind, this is where dyslexics and mildly autistic people have such an advantage, as to them, the mental concepts and constructs of society often seem limiting and alien. With practice and learned focus, they more easily avail of what Eckart Tolle calls the Power of Now, or of what Spanish flamenco musicians call Duende, the spiritual connection. It is the state of mind that racing drivers enter, when they become both part of the machine and part of their surrounding environment. It is also the way of being that most likely enabled Einstein to explore and develop completely novel scientific theories. With experience and logical rigour, intuition can be finely honed to work hand in hand with one's cognitive skills, lifting ability as well as insight and understanding to higher levels. ~ i.a.ugur, June 2015
Thanks for that explanation of concept I had no understanding of and reluctance to look at.is it a quote from someone (letters at the end) if yes could you give a source if no thanks again for taking time and effort to give us cogent,understandable ,high quality explanation of complex and fuzzy ideas
@@romansobak8333, thanks. It is some of my own writing and I thought it maybe helpful in navigating the rather vague non-conceptual essence alluded to in the video interview. To look at indigenous ways of being from a different angle, i.e. using a different narrative. I use FB for long form writing and as way of sharing some of my political and philosophical thoughts, often based on personal experience. You can find it on FB and share it from there, if you want (or just include the credit and date at the end, as those are my initials :-) ) facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1067820939914082&set=pb.100000585575206.-2207520000..&type=3
mccougar - thank you for your elucidating comment as this is my understanding of our reality although I am not able to articulate it as fluent and intelligently as you. 🙏🏻
This is one of the most interesting interviews yet. I'm listening to it for a second time as I have been contemplating his ideas for more than a month now.
He’s fine, but the only thing “indigenous” about his thinking is that he is part indigenous and he is thinking. I liked his concept of writing a book in a way that invited multiple viewpoints into a discussion - that no two people would feel like they took away the same message from the book because it would maximally engage their unique positions. Beyond that, the conversation was drowned in a very similar post-modern interpretation that university professors have been selling for 10-20 years now. Maybe these ideas are fresher to Canadians, so they aren’t yet as sensitive to how functionally hollow they are outside of thought experiments.
Thank you! What a great timing - it's the AFL's indigenous round this weekend! Hopefully we can share this around use this as fodder for some good yarns ❤️
Beautiful! Need to pick up this book ASAP. "Setting up the conditions to allow EMERGENCE". This is the basic rubik of game theory that is conveniently disregarded by lazy, zealous ideologues since facebook and twitter created the 'like and share' functions. Social media needs a "zoom out" or "perspective" function if we want to hop the tribal narrative walls.
@ 1:00 “...foster the conditions for emergence.” AKA Free Markets. I’m interested to know how the rest of the interview goes. The comments are all over the place, which usually means there will be something of interest to be found.
This guy has nothing valuable to contribute. I don't feel like I've learned anything from this so I'm not sure how this counts as wisdom unless we're talking about the wisdom of "knowing that you know nothing". It doesn't take 44 minutes to express that though... What a waste of time
For you to say nothing means that you’ve closed your ears. The conversation was directionless but it was scattered with a lot of aha moments if you pay attention, unless these were things that you already knew
@@cherishchang8400 yeah but those "aha" Sherlock Holmes moments seem just as narcissistic and overly certain as the ideologies he criticises. It's a lot of intellectual willy waving but it's riddled with so much nihilism and carelessness at the same time. His laugh just proves it. The point of philosophy or ideology is to guide action so its not his ideas that matter at the end of the day, it's his actions - and he chose to write a book, which will probably be made from dead trees, for money that comes from an economic system that he sees as being in the wrong. He's all over the place. Hats off to the interviewer. I would have lost my patience with him
Cherish Chang I thought that I knew fair bit of what he was talking about and it still was a pleasure,emergence was my biggest learning. I haven’t heard anyone on this channel being so openly critical of Anglo culture,socio-political practices
Brendan Cahill I didn’t notice him criticizing ideologies besides the ideology of criticizing lol. What I gathered from his words is that there’s bad and good in both sides and there’s no need to criticize either. So many sides hold impartial truths and think they’ve found the whole answer. He conveyed his message with an ass-holish air to it, but that’s just how he communicates. If you think that invalidates his ideas and as a result you reject the 45 minutes of the video for that reason you’re perfectly just in taking that position but I’m not sure if you yourself legitimately think that he had nothing valuable to contribute. There’s a lot of wisdom in knowing that you know nothing, and for him to communicate that through an indigenous lens I think is very important.
A viewpoint not clearly understood by the wider world, trying to get folk to calm down, so they're able to hear him. A being over having mode. He hasn't strong answers to how to change the world, but that expectation is of the having mode.
So it sounds like he’s saying that some fights should not be picked so violently because there is no winning them ( no solution to some of them). It’s like this fight that thinks if we bark at others enough we can turn them good from evil. Without realizing that we’re evil too. Not that we shouldn’t strive to overcome evil but to violently fight each other in hopes to force the evil out of the other seems like one of those fights. Like if we can just beat the evil out of others and not be the tyrant.
Agree. Only way we can have the real change we need, is by non violent means. Build strong communities that are sustainable & not dependent on big business & government, then take away their money. Chop them off at the knees because that's all they care about. Stop buying THINGS, stop paying bills, stop watching their movies, TV & radio, filled with advertising & pushing political agendas, take all the money out of their banks that they use to play with & control the general populace, stop giving them power. We've believed their bullshit for too long. Not a gun has to be raised to defeat them, not if we all stick together, weight of numbers is on our side. We just have to convince everyone. It would be soooooo easy if people actually understood how imprisoned they are to their own life & their STUFF, but theirntoo busy being whipped into asubmission by news & letting themselves be entertained. One can only hope.
@@Nobi72 All great in theory and I completely agree. The problem however is that people simply don't want to do the work. You say "build strong communities" but that means that someone has to be responsible for growing the food. Very soon you'd find that people would get fed up and go to the supermarket because we've all been taught that technology and progress was meant to liberate us not create more 'unnecessary work'.
@@igg3937 If people are still unaware of how important it is to change & scared of being independently responsible, they are obviously still too tuned in to media & accepting the narrow perspective on world views that it offers. It's our responsibility to make them aware of things they're not being shown. Not rabbit hole propaganda but big issues that if left unaddressed will cause more harm. For example, the affects colonialism set in motion, such as systemic race issues that are still being felt worldwide, tha capitalist reality that promotes self interest, while ignoring growing poverty & homelessness, climate change that began with industrialism & will continue to grow as a threat to everyone until big business is shut down & regenerative indigenous practices are combined with other models to restore balance. I could go on but I had already set in my motion my plan to go directly to communities & spread this message in March but have pretty much been lockdown since. As soon as we"re released from jail, that is protecting us from a virus that we've had markedly less deaths from than the alarming jump in suicide, to realistically justify it's apparent purpose, it's the first thing on my agenda. I can't make others do the same but I can at least spread this information to as many as I can & hopefully those who see the big picture might do the same. I can only hope.
@@Nobi72 Again, that's great in an ideal world however I'm just being realistic; it's patently obvious that the vast majority of people just go about their daily lives with little consideration of the system that they're operating within. And that's fine, they have bills to pay, kids to feed, spouses to keep happy and stresses to deal with. But yes it's a depressing reality once you dig a little deeper into it. I'd be interested to hear any pragmatic suggestions you have with regards to how to address the imbalance. And i'd hesitate to blame capitalism: we're in a short-term depression at the moment however on the grander scale living standards globally have vastly improved over the last decade. And in comparison to, say 100 years ago, it's almost immeasurable. Life expectancy in the West was just 40 years in 1920. I'm not saying that's the only metric, but it's worth keeping in mind. 'Colonialism' has existed since the beginning of time too, can't blame that for everything either. What we're experiencing in my view is a spiritual crisis borne from a lack of purpose, meaning and faith. Technology has exceeded our spiritual and biological evolution to such a degree that people simply can't reconcile the difference - they want Star Trek and they want it now. They don't want to have to work for anything any more.
@@igg3937 I completely agree with you regarding the majority still lacking awareness of the all issues involved & the urgency required to alleviate the catastrophic effects, we could be forced to endure, if radical & gut wrenchingly fast action isn't enforced upon big businesses, to stop the obvious temperature rise, felt by so many of the world's citizen's. It's not surprising that this very real crisis gets very little air time, considering media has long be little more than agenda pushing, propaganda filled nonsense. Real journalism died over adecade ago, maybe longer. I have heard people protest that some networks aren't affected but here in Australia, our only government funded network, ABC, while still sharing documentaries pointing out the very sad but real truth, that Australia still has a larger than wanted percentage of people who are either blatantly racist or completely apathetic to Aboriginal genocide, enslavement, displacement due to illegal appropriation of land, removal of their children & removal of any rights & freedoms they had. The history we teach in school, still to this day, mentions little about the truth & Aboriginal history is, modified to hide any atocities they endured. Off topic much, I have a passionate belief in equality for all. Though the ABC is freer to share these stories, it is blatantly obvious that they are expected to not cause too much upheaval & report only about issues that won't disprove or question the stories on mainstream media, which Rupert Murdoch has been allowed to monopolise, after he obviously paid, swayed, bribed, threatened or simply asked for the law to be changed. Btw, Murdoch is a huge Trump supporter & imo, his puppeteer. I'm biased tough, I've hated Murdoch for years & had to stop watching mainstream because of his propaganda. UGH! In a truly democratic country, government & big business wouldn't so obviously be in league. I fail to see how else so many systems, designed to protect everyone, are so obviously failing, but capitalism is blameless? There is no other factor connecting them all & the failures are interrelated by the fact that they impact vulnerable, minority, expendable people & places. Research shows that colonialism, industrialism & the rise of capitalism are all directly linked to climate change. I am a part of Extinction Rebellion & many different articles have been posted on their FB group, emails, & I have attended several Zoom meetings focused on climate emergency. I encourage you google them & check it for yourself. Check out their demand for Citizen's Assembly too. Totally amazing & sorely needed change I have never been a fan of politics. It didn't take me long to realise that there is very little difference between the two main parties, neither keeps campaign promises, nor do they make allowances for working class, non of any real value, except the choice to increase welfare benefits, due to the fake pandemic imprisoning us in our own homes, skyrocketing suicide & mental health, closing down small businesses, making millions unemployed & big business are blissfully unaffected, isn't that lucky. I mean, the economy would collapse without them. What would we do? If only, I've been against the construct of money for a few years now. Would we cease to exist, or become unable to function if money suddenly disappeared? There would be glitches for sure but we would work it out. It would encourage the idea that less is actually more & if you can't get it locally then maybe you don't really need it at all. I agree that my ideas are idealistic & you only know a small part of it, but I'd rather be Yung's visionary & believe in his idea, partially quoted for you "the birth of a personal myth in the imagination of one individual, or a group of individuals, can literally spread & change the world." Because the hope of a future far removed from this fake, unbalanced, wrong, broken, irreconcilable, extinction chasing, miserable system, is the only thing keeping me from checking out of here. I refuse to go back to my previous life, struggling to feed, cloth & house myself & my 2 teenage kids. We'd be homeless if I didn't have my mum. I'm not going back, never going back. Only forward.
This interview was a little like "herding cats." Lots of enigmatic chuckles and nebulous thinking, that doesn't really go anywhere. Gave up 26 minutes in.
Surprisingly good talk. WTG Rebel Wisdom! WTB awesome, Dr. Yunkaporta. I neither agreed w/every point expressed by the prof, nor did I jump up and down upon hearing every question from the interlocuter. Particularly his "...(we humans) are the custodians of this planet..." misstep. If we killed all the cockroaches on Earth except just a few hundred, and kept these critters alive in a max boot chemical class 5 security underground bunker, where their rooms were completely contained within a poison-filled room, and more securities to make sure they could never escape, guess what? Within a few years eggs would be laid in the clothing of their caretakers, and we'd once again be living on a globe filled with roaches. So, yeah: they're the "custodians," not us. One good point: this 2 + 2 = 5 stuff. Of course those coming at others with this math are not approaching in good faith. Loved the part about riding a bike that goes nowhere, lifting heavy stuff that does not need to be lifted. For years now I've been telling people why I like bicycling more than driving my car. When problems happen with other commuters I've sometimes found myself peddling faster, escaping. So stress is induced, then that stress is reduced by my racing. OTOH, while I'm driving, when those same kinds of problems happen, about all I can do is grip the wheel harder; so stress is induced, but then not reduced, not really, not enough. Results? Ulcers, cancer, etc. Hopping on a fake bicycle and riding to nowhere, and even peddling that stationary bike rather vigorously does not help because there isn't an active real reaction to some truck driver about to beat me up because he doesn't like my bicycling habits, followed by me smashing his side mirror, then escaping. Those motorists who drive after me very fast are (internally) "chasing down the little bunny," but not processing that stress in a healthful way. Their heart rates go up for a time while they twist and turn their steering wheels, but this only results in more stress, stress that they do not relieve in a healthy way.
Right at the end of TY's talk with Douglas Rushkoff, he introduces the idea that custodian applies to more than humans. Having fun exploring between Sand Talk and Merlin Sheldrake's just arrived Entangled Life which takes custodianship to a whole new level.
The "2+2=4" section failed to offer a new insight; in fact, I don't think the issue was addressed honestly at all, instead boring problemitizing was offered instead...these two should sit down with James Lindsay hash it out
@@ograzebrook the 2+2=4 was a huge thread to unpack..."Arabic numbers" was discussed within the thread....I'm not sure I could say what I sight i was looking for, but more than what they offered.
@@tonyklein4709 I just thought that was a load of childish cultural rebellion nonsense personally. I often think if you keep unpacking something like that, you can go down a rabbit hole of meaningless toss. The bit that irked me a little was the remark about the "theft" of Arabic numerals, as though cultures are not permitted to use systems from other cultures. It can be just as much flattery as theft. Considering he recognises natural law and dominance, that was a slightly contradictory comment I thought.
I think* I get most of this, and I consider myself classically liberal/libertarian. But while this whole cultural nonsense goes on, I'm still only vaguely interested in philosophy, whereas prior to this I had never read a philosophy book, probably because I'm an engineer. Basically, this is talking over the heads of a lot of people that tend to be very useful and productive in society, whereas this to me seems as useless as the stationary bike he mentioned. No offense.
@@MrSears_1.618 Agreed, but when things get bad as I believe they will, these things will fall by the wayside and be replaced by "I need to make sure my family is safe and fed". I've read a bit of philosophy a while back, but I've switched to history and military tactics now as I believe they'll be more useful in the future along with the skills I already have.
@@fuzzyblue9880 Continue studying for as long as there is joy in it and it will flower. As a veteran of the US Navy I can tell you of the value I place on that knowledge. Fear is a consequence of an unfocused imagination causing a physical reaction. We all have a movie theater in our mind, make sure you have control over what shows and when.
Cognitive dissonance as per encyclopaedia Brittanica may be a useful tool to understand not only what they talked about but also our (listeners) reactions to that
So what is he actually saying? Apart from pushing his book that is. He is doing exactly what he is accusing others of. No society has ever been perfect and no society ever will be simply because societies are made up of imperfect human beings.
You're correct. I propose individual responsibility as a solution. Not in the manner of saying "You are responsible for this!" But that you can choose to react OR to realise you have the ability to respond in a manner of your choosing. Response-Ability
Interesting mind on display here. He does give rather uncharitable stereotypes to those who are critiques of postmodern "power" based interpretations. Would love to see him engage actual arguments against what he so willingly defends.
Emergence = Dao I have said it before, I will say it again. Read The Long Descent by John Michael Greer, if you want to have a good idea of what is coming. This guy says that there are no solutions. That is because this is not a problem that we can solve. It a predicament that we have to live through.
A 1 of 2 Comment on post up to 3:30 mis. A nice opening frame by Tyson Yukaporta. The dichotomy between state meaning and institutional vocabulary and indigenous meaning and the unique relations between particulars and ordinary language perhaps. To reference Hegel the on the ground relations are a universal particular, that is say family friends community are unique particulars that are universally present ( a paradox for sure contrast with Kierkegaard the particular universal as subjectivity If i have this the right way round ) the contrast Tyson is drawing is that between state as morality and the indigenous as ethical. The problematic unfolds that the indigenous is post facto expressed through universal state vocabulary like contract law, family law, local community law. these since have been expressed as rights (indigenous rights family rights individual rights (the latter an abstraction for Hegel contra Kant). the notion of re-presenting these as right holders, or entitlements on the one hand protects them sustains them but on the other in the hands of state and capitalist institutions threaten them. Thus we see the problem of the dichotomy of individual rights responsibilities capitalist liberalism and state right and responsibilities, becomes not two simply opposed institutions o for and one against the indigenous, but as both claiming, through right the indigenous as their own. For capitalist liberal institutions the indigenous must be turned over to efficiency a Taylorism in the community the domestic realm, an external efficiency metric now expressed as increasing opportunity for the individual. For the state this means protection of the concrete conditions real identities (contra Kant) But now this has become via law also as turning the indigenous over to its role in a equality and justice project . This means particular relations are owned by the state and those particulars are mere custodians of what belongs to the state. So for capitalist vocabulary parents for example become sedimented work trainers primarily, and for the state parents are just the de facto primary care givers. With reference to G.E. Moore naturalistic fallacy for the good ad W.D. Ross on casuistry duties for rights , the indigenous become mere contingent relations eventually actualised as subordinate to either or both capitalism and the state. And so we see that Tyson is right about false dichotomies here but the risk is that we surreptitiously fall into a slightly modified version of one or the other and its tendentious process we just add to.
“All you can do is foster the conditions for emergence, and allow it to emerge, and just behave with integrity. The minute you have an idea and you think, “This is an important idea; everybody should know about this; everybody should be doing this.” As soon as you do that you’ve made an ideology, and you are stuffed. You’ve made a closed system, and entropy is the only thing that can ensue.” Tyson Yunkaporta Ideology: A closed system in which only entropy can ensue.
But isnt it also the case that there are great ideas which we benefit from having had shared with us? Seems there some kind of compromise / middle ground to be found
It’s good to have someone on this channel making a case for postmodernism, postcolonial theory, and indigenous thinking. There are legitimate critiques of positivism and scientism. But when “wokeism” takes hold in the universities, it doesn’t create a beautiful integral synthesis combining inclusive thought with reason and rigour. It just installs its own power structures and tries to destroy science.
Yes, and how we believed them when they claimed their revolution would put subjectivity before strict rules, and where politics is governed by conflict, it would become governed by love, and replacing linear, closed, binary oppositions, with fluid, open, multiplicities. They were clever enough not to mention the word patriarchy back then either.
It’s the anarchy that does away with hierarchy communism is about dictatorship of the proletariat . I wander if even caveman societies had leaders,my bet is on yes
That was so refreshing. Rebel Wisdom is too orange and too faux yellow. Tyson gave that approach a good beating. And I like the idea of emergence. But I would say that we can keep the best of all knowledge systems in the process. Of course, we inevitably will anyway. The key, I think, is to see and negate the false rather than creating a new system. That means trusting ourselves and life at large, which Tyson was also pointing to.
No one is 'ignoring' power, or thinking it 'doesn't exist', I don't think. It's making everything about that which is the problem. And then we've got the 'arab mathematician' argument. Everybody in the 'West' is aware that algebra was pioneered by Arabs. We also know that they basically gave up on it in about 1500 because the newly empowered mullahs told them that all truth was revealed by the Prophet, exclusively, so all empiricism was unnecessary and even wicked. So Europe, beginning to take a contrasting attitude towards the controlling hand of religion upon science, took up the slack, and used the knowledge garnered from the Arabs - in some small part - to aid their scientific endeavours. Someone was going to, and a combination of factors meant that European societies had the capacity and resources to do it. And this was before any of these emerging nation states had begun their colonial projects.The only colonial project worth the name which was going anywhere near Europe at that time was a decidedly Arab one. But he's right about there being no solutions, and that ideology is useless. This is what this guy is good at, and why he's worth a listen.
Not sure I am that keen on his style, seems a bit pompous. Have to admit I know nothing of Foucault, not studied philosophy or sociology formally. Not sure people have been delighted about the Beirut explosion disaster. Or Bhopal or the oil tanker in Mauritius. No, not convinced. Doesn't seem to add anything to other far better indigenous speakers and wisdom. All a bit weak
Your post is not making obvious sense to me was he expressing delight about Beirut explosions or any other disasters you mentioned if yes I must’ve missed it
There is some very confused thinking going on here. 1) Emergence is when we find a different metaphor for different physical behaviour at a higher level of complexity. That's in every sense unrelated to what he said first. 2) He's right about the life/work balance being better in tribal times, but there's no way that can be relevant without first dealing with population control, which is not dealt with in Any indigenous ideology because no indigenous people ever had to live through or rectify overpopulation, particularly on a global scale. Likewise there are many other things that "indigenous thinking" simply cannot address today, like technology, nation-states, balancing customs of numerous tribes, on and on... 3) That many aspects of "progress" are bad doesn't indicate a) that indigenous thinking is relevant b) that indigenous thinking is good c) that "progress" is properly defined in this context d) that those problems are really of "progress" instead of capitalism or stupidity or some other large force. 4) Indigenous knowledge is only meaningful in an indigenous context. Same as a NYC dude going to the country. As a lens, sure, great. As solutions for the modern world? Give me a fucking break. 5) There are two distinct kinds of theory - the scientific kind which is that which is best supported by the evidence, as far as the relevant scientists can tell, and the vernacular kind, more akin to a guess. Both are predictions based on evidence but the regular use of the word, his use, doesn't give a whit whether your theory has evidence. All theories are wrong? Bollocks. How can i trust you to talk about knowledge in any sense if you think any theory is equivalent to any other, which is clearly false? "Every scientist will tell you, every theory is wrong, but some are useful."? This guy's been reading but not understanding philosophy. I'm done here.
Can you elaborate a bit? Is Power "balanced" by Love and Wisdom so it doesn't get misused. What do you mean by Love being the fulcrum of Life and Death? In what sense is it a fulcrum?
@Winston Smith I mentioned boats. That was my side of the conversation. Are you familiar with that happening? Look for attention elsewhere, this is the last you get from me.
@@jtzoltan 1. Yes. 2. When Love is felt deeply and is "attached" it becomes objectified. To reduce life to objects alone is to ignore the forest for the tree. A forest is not an object, yet it exists. I can show you many examples of the consequences of Love and your experience with those consequences allows you recognize when Love emerges.
He misunderstands, or misrepresents, Lindsay's point with 2 + 2 = 5 by turning it into an debate over how Arabic scholars might think the numerals are misused. The point was clearly this: two objects and two more objects are four objects, not five. This is a fundamental fact, and your "standpoint" or epistemological view of it does not change this.
@@evanhadkins5532 Of course, but that isn't the point Lindsay was making. We could argue all day what different symbols to use for math, and there can be a real debate on that, but there is an objective fact that undergirds it - two objects and two more objects are four, not five. The case being made by many against Lindsay is that there can be a different way of knowing that makes 2 + 2 = 5, which he is pointing out is not true.
@@Scaevola77 What Lindsay misses is that representations differ. There may be an exterior world (I think there definitely is) but the way we talk about and think about makes a difference. Our perceptions are educated (we are social beings). Science fiction can be good at highlighting this kind of thing. Eg Vonnegut's slaughter house five where the little green men see lines rather than points. This is true to the exterior world: everything 'moves' through time.
@@evanhadkins5532 I don't disagree that there can be significant differences in the way we perceptive the world, and I think that Dr. Yunkaporta makes a great point of illustrating that perhaps we need to be looking at other cultures to seek the great knowledge and truth in them. But there is bedrock, and math is one of them. Lindsay is pointing out that if we cannot agree on something such as math, then there is nothing we can agree on. You cannot build skyscraper or create a hydro power station without math and an understanding of physics. There are no different ways to interpret the law of fluid dynamics, regardless of your standpoint.
@@Scaevola77 There are different mathematical 'languages' too, eg. non-euclidean geometry. The problem with 'objectivity' is that it distinguishes the real facts from the theory (which is tested and can be falsified by facts); but then the theory gets defended as real/true.
He seems less grumpy in this interview with Jim Rutt (although, I thought the current interviewer was pretty good): ruclips.net/video/whRVg1itU50/видео.html He’s definitely not a fan of current western culture. Although his answers to direct questions seemed most often evasive, when he talked himself onto turf he wanted to discuss, his criticisms were quite sharp; he can be perfectly well understood when he chooses. I’m not sure what his point was on the "2 + 2 = 5" issue. Does he want all mathematicians to place a footnote in all publications thanking the Arabs for inventing the numerals, number system (and major parts of mathematics)? What happened to the indigenous sharing economy? Do we have to pay for everything?
@@romansobak8333 - Well, some of my remarks were flippant and could be taken as rude. I've removed them. The rest are just observations/reflections on what he said.
A 3 of 2 conclusion comment To stick with Einstein, What were contingent possibilities in the past have become necessities for the present. This notion of imminence and history should make for a radical rethinking of historical understandings of capital liberalism and social justice projects. From within thinking in terms of an indigenous standpoint we can place as transcendent errors both these sciences. In a way I think, Kant didn’t go far enough into transcendental history and what this means with respect to Ectype and archetype and regulative infinite projects when we understand the schematism historically and the analogies of experience w.r.t. the above view. (See also Foucault on the historical a priori) I think we can use the historicised schema as condition for valid notions of the ectype and archetype and so Critique there backward transcendent erred use and forward immanent teleological transcendent (?) use and use this a criteria to check when an indigenous project can fall back into a version of these two scientific traditions. Less as some have commented Tyson’s project just becomes a new version of one or both these traditions.
There is a good stuff here but I think his analysis of state is very shallow also, there are very different models of states that are much more community and collaborative based, like the social democratic regimes in the Nordics.
I had a insight just now I would like to share: I was listening to Alan Watts talk about laughter being the experience of tension between inside and out or spirit and the world). He pointed out there are different ways of viewing the same thing and sometimes you take it seriously and sometimes not. The insight came because I was just recently laughing while talking to people about the US political narratives. The reason I was laughing is because they took seriously something I thought was a complete joke. And I was laughing at their whole perspective because it was funny that anyone takes any of this seriously. So I determined that this type of condescending laughter is because the person just sees through the position of the other they are talking with, as well as any perspective they themselves may offer. It’s not that one is true and the other not, it’s that both are untrue. Tyson was talking about spinning yarns, that’s the giveaway that he’s approaching it from a perspective of not buying into his or other perspectives (at least in that moment). The reason why I think it’s important is that this is a valuable perspective to have right now. Not buying into any narrative, and refraining from taking any of it seriously. Though the laughter at the other may come off as condescending, because in that moment the other person is really taking it seriously, and is completely bought in. However it’s not a personal laughing down at the other but just the act of observing the difference between the different reactions to the same thing. I think framing this as some idea that will save the world was the original title and frame, and that right there makes me laugh harder than anything, the idea that a idea will save the world! And I laugh at myself too because I believed that very thing from age 20-30. As a note I think the perspective is not that you believe the other person may be right or you may be right, it’s that you know (in that moment) (from that perspective) that no narrative is ever or has ever been true. The laugh is about how there are billions who take their story seriously. So the reason I point this out is because this perspective is so valuable, especially in these wild times. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
...in a way western Mathematics is set up with an optional binary logic ...the axiom is: given any two objects either they are identical with each other or different. However we could reformulate maths and logic with a non-binary axiom which says: given any two objects either they are identical with each other or different or one is part of the other (as a whole) or that one is the whole which the other is a part. What would maths and science look like if we did this?
I seem to be working on this as part of what i am doing at the moment. My understanding so far is that say in Leibnitz A=A therefore Not (A and not A) are the logical laws of identity and non-contradiction. but in shifting from logic to metaphysics we then get that no two objects can be identical in every way in all properties, attributes, predicates, descriptions ect. and not be the same one object. Thus all objects that are epistemologically and metaphysically distinct, are distinct by a property description predicate attribute ect. Difference. The kind of project this leads to is a hyper rationalism where in, Kant's terminology the contingencies of experience are in principle derivable from concepts alone. A full conceptual understanding would capture all empirical experience and detail. Kant disagrees in that, position in space is not a matter of relations between objects and so not a matter of property predicate ect difference. This means we turn to experience in its endless detail of an object of experience and none of this is derivable form concepts alone. The project is to turn to experience and it's conceptual articulation. If you are interested in going there the Kant argument about space is in the Critique of Pure Reason section called The Transcendental Aesthetic, and the argument against Leibnitz is the section The Amphiboly of the Concepts of Reflection. If you really have time on your hands you could look at Hegel’s take on this in his science of logic and his reformulation of these logical laws. His claim is now interpreted by some to be that when we refer to an object with a predicate, property, S is p, we are at once committed to or involved with S not being not p. and perhaps then metaphysically ontologically this S is now a member of all the p’s in the universe and not a member of all the not p’s in the universe. So reference to an object and the logic of identity are not primitive notions but in a “space of reasons” (Wilfred Sellers) and being and non being. This account is disputed at the moment and my rendering might not be entirely correct for any position. I’m just beginning this stuff in Hegel. My point of including this on Hegel is that much of the discussions now on difference complexity radical contingency non binary ect can be traced back though Deleuze (Difference and Repetition 1968) back to Hegel and the Kant Leibnitz debate. I hope this might have been of some interest.
Conclusion The implications for mathematics and science concern then whether an axiom system is appropriate to quantitatively representing modeling the world at all. While we have complexity theory chaos mathematic it seems to point to a limit to linear representation and cannot so to speak model chaos. which i guess would be a kind of conceptual confusion anyway chaos means no model. I can't imagine axioms of chaos mathematics except to draw limits form inside linear mathematics. I think complexity just points to empirical detail not derivable form concepts alone but not non-conceptual as such. This is not new though fluid flows and thermodynamics were beyond Newtonian analysis. The modern change is a proof of this limit as opposed to just saying its complex if we had all the variables we could work it out. (This is Zizek's view i think anyway.)
@@socraticsceptic8047 If you have not studied philosophy I ought to say that it will be a long and difficult undertaking. I would strongly suggest not to start reading the primary Leibniz Kant (Hegel be afraid very afraid) texts. Either start with some university lecture courses on Leibniz and then on Kant (there are many find one you can enjoy) or just focus on your problem of the logic identity and difference ( as a problem involving logic metaphysics ontology and epistemology ) ad work into the Leibniz and Kant context as you require. Its like climbing everest without rope otherwise. But as Geoffrey Warnock said in his interview on Kant in the 70's if you get there its rather makes all the others look like amateurs. I have done a lot on this stuffs relation to mathematics (issue is the necessity of a subject predicate distinction but this though through the necessity of conservation principles of substance and causality. for me the logic of identity has its life here and so does in terms of your central question, the outline of an answer to "how is mathematics and natural science possible" . I Hope this helps, good luck and enjoy
I have come across a real world example that draws these ideas into view and ties the discussion better to you question about mathematical axioms I thought you might be interested in a real world example (not just an application) of these logic metaphysical epistemological problematic. If you are in the UK you may have been following the exam algorithm story. In a way we could consider the algorithm as a conceptual approach. it is not purely conceptual since it draws on empirical data but it a cautionary at least in that it takes the data as a probability density and then re-presents the world from its probability function. this then has the effect of a kind of ignorance to the specific cases. all subsumed under a prior probability density function. The problem with a focus on the case alone though is the inability to link them e.g. linked in a synchronic space with other cases at the same time, and linked in a diachronic time consistent with others cases past and future. The dialectic that results has the form of either we emphasize the cases uniqueness, then we have no intuition the relations in the present and no continuity and so no real world condition for mathematicalisation no metric structure of relations e.g. the Axioms of transitivity commutivity associativity reflection and identity (this is the category of identity or indexical reference.) We loose these mathematical axiom conditions as we lose the condition of continuity (as i mentioned conservation or symmetry principles or, we emphasize the above conceptual conditions and loose the specific respect dignity of the case under the pre given (but empirically grounded ) continuity conditions. this can't be dealt with at the level of the probability space of Bayesian statistics (which is what the algorithm probability used) because the probability space PRESUPPOSES diachronic and synchronic continuity. as its prior condition of possibility. this is a very Kantian way of elucidating this problematic. it is of wide scope though in that social justice equality is also predicated on prior general data a terms and so obliterates THE UNIQUENESS THE INDIVIDUAL CASES NOT TO MENTION CASES NOT UNDER THEIR SPECIFIC CONCEPTUAL CARVINGS AND BINARY OPPOSITIONS. INTERSECTIONALITY IS THEIR ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THIS SORT OF PROBLEM BUT REMAINS A REPRESENTATION OF PRIOR CONCEPTUAL CARVINGS A MULTIPLICITY OF BUT STILL REMAINING RATIONAL CONCEPTUAL CASUISTRY RE-PRESENTATION. I think this is of general interest so i will post a version of this in the general comments section with reference to yourself also
The West has been looking for answers in all the wrong places. For the past 500 years or so we have been completely ignoring the knowledge of the 'conquered' cultures while looking for the meaning of life in our own background, and suddenly along come books like Sand Talk and show us things we need but didn't even know we were looking for. I hope there is more opening up of indigenous knowledge to replace what we have lost from our own culture.
A 2 of 2 comments To put the problem in familiar terms for Rebel Wisdom then, can a focus on the indigenous and imminence and projects of local emergence ignore the modern arrival of the state and commerce structure? Can we just forget out the thermodynamic ontology of equilibrium capitalism and or the geometry of the structural state? That is can we escape and return like Robinson Crusoe or are these structures, although contingently historically emergent, now for us a necessary horizon of the possible. E.g. perhaps useful to think of this as framed in terms of Kant’s Schematism, Typic (the ambiguity of the good) ectype and archetype. That is these two sciences each have images although not given in experience or as a finite human end, are horizons, regulative ideals, demanding their impossible actualisation as infinite projects. I think there is, from here, no way back to before these structures came into being. We cannot, now, make a move, an act that takes us to some point in the past and reopen a contingent possibility that was possible then. In terms of the possibility frontier now, that past possibility of counter factuality, has become the “absolute elsewhere”.
I’m guessing he was laughing at the notion that discussions, ideas, theories and model building will change or save the world. I think he sees all the chaos and vitriol in the culture war and all these intellectual masturbations as part of the problem and the solution if I’m getting him right is to lighten up about all this stuff, similar to What Stephen Fry said was needed in the Munk debate with Peterson- less certainty and a willingness to play lightly with the ideas. Something JBP should take to heart since he’s so emotional about it all.
Well I don’t know Tyson, but it could also be a sense of superiority. I get the sense that RW is not his normal audience. Or he could just be stoned. But if that’s the case than smoke up buddy, you can laugh too. I personally don’t give a shit about him or his message, just using him as a foil to express ideas. Somehow I think if he was on Peyote he would not be able to give interviews. I don’t care what he’s on, he could be huffing cat urine on camera for all I care I’m here for the discussion.
“People are seldom angry for the reason they think and they are never angry for the thing that they say.”
Very true... I recently saw a proverb that went something like; words are tools often used to disguise our true feelings
@@ograzebrook That's really extraordinary, and very often true in much of human communication. We can use the tools to really expose our true feelings, but it can be amazingly difficult especially when it comes to being understood
Love his dry sense of humor and his honesty that it was for the money. It seems he’s doing his best to stitch together both worlds, but ...
We are still living in this capitalist existence, therefore money is still essential. Don't make money, don't have food or a place to live. It's pretty simple.
Plus Aussies are freaking hilarious..........accept the rich pricks & politicians, they suck, as they do in all parts of the world & space & time.
I keep coming back to this interview as the sanest perspective I have ever heard. Whenever I get frustrated by identity politics, polarized politics, or Western ideology I listen to Tyson's earthy wisdom and feel grounded again.
"Every theory is wrong but it can be useful in certain contexts". That fits well with Integral philosophy...He's right about over-emphasis on outliers too.
Whoa !!! This was one of the best interviews that I have listened to. Intelligent and easy to comprehend without any numbo-jumbo convoluted talk, just to scramble our heads and make the talker seem all-knowledgeable.
I think that our “ability to adapt” is our golden key, even in our worst traumas.
By the way, that laugh was pure gold. I will definitely look out for this speaker again. Thank you 🙏🏻
I listened to see if the video title "Indigenous thinking" would be something about living day to day, a whole lot different than modern living/mindset? Ahhh, too much Phd talk for me on this interview.
Here at camp bulalayaw, we combine Kapwa and a bit of Kapu Aloha and combine it with the 10 principles of burning man and even a good dose of the four agreements (Toltec) and push it all in community living in our modern structure. People have paying part time jobs, but spend a lot of time building up the village. Grow gardens and forest manage and have council circles, fitness, wellness, and chores. Lots of chores.
Arbeit macht frei
Again and again...
Building strong communities will be paramount to making real world change, I believe. It won't happen though, until we convince everyone that building strong communities leads to independence from government rule. When we are a strong community, that connects & interacts, with other strong local communities, we will have no problem defunding big business & demanding government reform, in the form of Citizen's Assemblies.
Real working class people, of all races, making decisions regarding issues of local & national importance, with OUR best interests at heart, not to the benefit of big business, fat cats, media moguls, mining magnates, pharma vampires, bankers or tech pioneers.
They can't threaten us with cutting off food supply, energy or water, because we will have planned & have enough within our communities to sustain us all.
It's amazing that you, & many other communities around the world, have built something amazing. Now we just need to wake up all the Zombies, glued to the news & media & following it's every command. Once we break that connection, we might just achieve real change.
Cheers from Australia.
I think you shouldn't characterise philosophy as phd talk, especially as you abide by toltec philosophy via the four agreements. All views are valid in fostering the conditions for healthy adaption as a species.... I think that's the general message here
@@ograzebrook It's talk without action. Yes, there are lots of types of knowledge and they have value. If you're not going to live differently it's just Phd talk. On paper it sounds great but having a one-on-one convo about why someone left the gate open to the garden and rabbits ate everything is another thing. Transformation will be when humans decide to live in a grounded fashion which no one wants to do because game theory.
@@zachferdinand6633 I suppose it depends how far removed one is from food production and how much their basic needs are being met (ie Maslow). If you are in the business of farming, not much time for philosophy. I wish you well.
An engaging and important interview. Can’t say I agreed with him about everything but the principle of “emergence” is the right idea, I think. The old fashioned term for that is “surrender”. As in relinquishing control. Again very valuable episode. Thanks RW! 👍
Thank you! I love Rebel Wisdom, but there's been a noticeable lack of both indigenous wisdom as well as self-critique, and this video offered both.
well the ingdigenous could use internet and share their info?
I know we are very “woke” in this channel but I’ll say it for you. Fat block of over here is smart about emergence but laugh his racism off on any other attempts of cultural know how. 🧐😒 indigenous my foot.
@@tonyingariarungah7314 he spoke his truth so why question his indigeneity?
@@gabrielahimsa4387 you think they don't? the info is out there
@@wombat6177 some times it’s good to call a spade a spade.
I love Tyson Yonkaporta. His ability to weave the nuanced interconnectedness while maintaining a sense of humour while being self-deprecating while maintaining reverence is a direct reflection of the complicated interconnectedness of the universe he talks about.
Thank you Rebel Wisdom for hosting this conversation.
I love the wholesome and refreshing intellectual style of this guy
Everyone else that generalizes and offers critique is an idiot. Not me though. Hahaha
Haha I still got a bit out of the video but I did think that was hilarious
I don't remember him excluding himself from that
@@PeasantByTheSouthernSea He definitely seems to think he is.
He wasn’t saying generalizing and critiquing was idiotic, it’s parroting a narrow one sided snippet from one singular perspective that he was pointing out as idiotic. He’s advocating pluralism and a integral framework I believe.
@@michaelnice93 I agree.
I LOVE this guy. He presents a rare and beautiful honesty.
I managed just over 30 minutes of this and that was hard work.
Karen, I mean Kristin, what triggered you?
Thank-you Rebel Wisdom for hosting Tyler! An intuitive (genius) indeed! Looking forward to reading his book, "Sand Talk".
Glad to see that Tyson has scrambled a few minds here trying to understand him. Just go read his book, ha!
His entire premise can be summed up by "shits fucked, can't be fixed." Fuckin brilliant indidgenous knowlegde right there
You tube has gone too far with the ads. I can't stand being interrupted by the same ad every 5 minutes while trying to pay attention to this important talk. Please upload to spotify!
I think rebel wisdom themselves decided to put this amount on the video. It's truly obnoxious. 10 minutes in and I'm done. (I'm listening while falling asleep and the ads are so loud and jarring, sorry for the grump.)
I found a great two part interview with this guy on Jim Rutt's podcast on spotify.
I was just listening to JBP’s biblical lecture on Cain and able and he was saying that sometimes when things go sideways it’s because you need to re-evaluate your value system because what you are narrowly attending to as your top values are what is causing the shitty situation to unfold the way it is. He went on to say that if this is the case then we must be willing to do the tough thing now and sacrifice what we were attached to in order to fix it.
What I hear from Tyson Yunkaporta is that civilization’s values are off. That a natural law or some unnamed practical wisdom is what reasserts itself naturally when the upholding of the dominant modern mode is absent.
And that is reminiscent of a passage from the Tao Te Ching that talks about how ‘virtues’ like piety and patriotism arise when the conditions of society degenerate. If it was not degenerate in the first place we would not need to make a special effort to correct it. And that circles back to what Tyson is saying is that everyone adding in their idiotic criticisms and solutions amounts to another hand on the steering wheel that nobody has any control over.
I like Tyson’s attitude more than anything he says which is really pretty dismissive and a bit cagey, while he does a good job of criticizing what is wrong, like many others he is certainly not trying to ‘save the world’ with ideas or words as the subtitle to the video suggests. He’s like I should be doing work right now rather that dreaming up yarns, but I will chat with you for a bit.
It’s a perspective informed from a culture independent of the one being discussed. I put more value on his perspective than most others on Rebel Wisdom. You need a perspective different than the one which created the problem as A. Einstein says.
I love this new tack R. Wisdom.
Aren’t we all?
Yeah but it doesn't sound like he even owns up to the shit of his own culture. Statistics do matter.. At least when done correctly they do present indeniable truths.. Which he still denies.
Agent Smith,
My point is that nobody has all the answers. When we are open, vulnerable, honest and willing to listen with curiosity then we can go places we have not before and even if that new explored territory ends up being a false construct it will be noted as such. I have read and am sympathetic to the original way of human life. I believe there is massive explanatory power in the story about the old order vs. the new order and I am coming at this from having done deep study of it. If one believes the narrative that the ancient ways of being are outdated and we have been evolving in the right direction away from them (using technological advances and standards of living as a justification) then it’s totally proper to dismiss this perspective from the old order. However if you believe as I do that civilization has taken a wrong turn or that it is even just wrong fundamentally than the perspective of the old order is very valuable.
I encourage you to stretch and grow and consider that we all may be mistaken to a significant degree. I don’t consider this man to have all the answers and he does not say he does. The valuable thing he offers is a frame, a critical frame that points out the flaws. I don’t want to make too much of Tyson it’s my first exposure to him but his views I’m sympathetic to. You may disagree of course and really I’m not out to change anyone’s mind. So this more for anyone open to explore the issues he’s raising. But it is confusing to find such a narrow rigid simplistic view being expressed here since the space R.W. Opened up is not about tossing in our simplistic reductionist comments. All that being said I find this interview itself simplistic- tell me how to save our society wise indigenous man. It’s premature to offer solutions until the error is clear.
@Michael Nice - I am so glad that you took the time to put down your view in words. I am of the same mind but was unable to articulate my ideas in the calm but firm manner that you did, thus making it clear that you have no intention of changing people’s minds. I have been called “naive” but I am at peace with that because it allows me to maintain a sense of curiosity regarding everything surrounding me. Thank you 🙏🏻
Indira,
This view I express is the least naive I can imagine. It’s a blend of 4 teachings. William Bramley who wrote God’s of Eden, Daniel Quinn who wrote Ishmael, Robert Monroe who wrote Far Journeys, and Ramana Maharshi who lived as a enlightened man with integrity.
Each has offered a very potent truth in seed form that has grown to inform me. Quinn’s view is most relevant to this conversation.
My take on this conversation is we want to know where we went wrong, so we can correct it. In my view everything every human on earth does is both absolutely perfect and absolutely wrong.
Perfect because reality is perfection and the dream is imperfection. The point of the dream is to indulge in the feeling and experience of wrongness. When we wake up we realize nothing was ever wrong. So it really does not matter at all what we do, it will always be wrong, but not really wrong. The only noble, perfect and wholesome aim is to recognize our original true nature as perfection itself and attempt to embody that. All compassion and wisdom flow automatically from there. Trying to cultivate it from the position of the false self is a wild goose chase. That is why all this activity, inventions etc, will be bound to make conditions worse. The naive part comes when one believes that a large amount of people will seek their true self or that all this activity in the mind and with our hands will lead to better conditions or improvements.
The value of being human is of believing something is wrong, really wrong.
The value of being a immortal spiritual being comprised of pure consciousness is self sufficiency.
The dream of human life provides the one thing that consciousness lacks. I believe it was like this from the beginning of life, and becomes more and more so all the time. I believe that it is magic, secret societies and aliens that keep this unlikely project going. In the conventional sense I see what will help most right now is if people slowed down, unplugged and eased off collectively. A sort of rejection of modern and postmodern life, going back to simple sustainable and independent rugged individualism and tight community. Everything is moving and changing so fast, but I don’t expect that path to be very heavily travelled. We are all excited about the goodies we can get when we support a globalist technocracy. If makes me sick just like Tyson I see the project of civilization as false simply because it does not deliver on its promises, it enslaves us and gets us to participate in our own captivity and domestication.
The reason I don’t care if anyone thinks as I do about these things is the forces which make this dreamworld happen are too far along with all this, nothing can stop them now and it’s all a bad dream, no matter what we do so just start contrasting it with waking perfection and attend to that. That’s all we can do. Then our actions may begin to exhibit more wisdom and compassion naturally. The beauty of the way some native free tribal people lived is that they limited their engagement with the world to only what was necessary and they honored the sacred spirit that flows in all things. That is a recipe for success in my opinion.
Thank you! Delicious conversation❤
Big Thinkers never seem to get much done, they're good at telling you how you should do it but can't themselves.
He has done various things.
How much of his work are you aware of?
" All those people who think they can come up with a new system, they're idiots." Said from a different frame. We can't fix this one either, just go back natural law. But he sidestepped the issue of how to take care of everyone who is already here. Indigenous ways require alot of area to support relatively few people, the way of natural law. Natural law, subsistence farming, permaculture, and similar practices won't feed 8 billion mouths.
Exactly, and what will feed 15 billion mouths?
I think this idea of centralised power being corruptible which he touches on is largely accepted and for the first time in our society (that I’m aware of) we’re creating systems to push power to the edges and back to the people, for example decentralised technology like community managed social media, community run crypto and blockchain. This feels like he best way to overcome the overarching flaw of our system.
"Foster the conditions for emergence". Love that.
One of the most generative Rebel wisdom Interviews. Worth digesting & exploring this perspective. 🌱
This is so refreshing! Deconstruction that reconstructs by advocating not throwing the baby out with the bath water, and honouring different systems of knowledge. The observation that indigenous wisdom is related to place seems to me to be the healing needed for Western disembodied heads. We need to become a ‘somewhere’ since being an ‘anywhere’ too often means being a ‘nowhere’ and moving on, leaving a trail of destruction for the ‘somewheres’ to deal with. For an excellent article on this topic, see The Banquet of Whiteness by Charles Eisenstein.
Love this! He is very grounded and knows where he stands and it's evident in his relaxed speech and humour.
Trust a Aussie to tell it how it fkn is!
Thanks brother ❤️💛🖤
A refreshing view. An insightful fellow.
Very eye opening, thank you!
Piqued my interest enough to grab a copy ... supporting a fellow Queenslander as a side effect can’t be bad either.
Tyson Yunkaporta is BRILLIANT!
I'd love to hear Tyson have a conversation with Jordan Peterson about the convergence of complexity, "wicked problems", and human behavior.
no thanks. tyson is a lot more interesting and nuanced than mcdonalds philosopher
@@yasminp7640 🤡🤡🤡
J.P.s whole contribution would be: being overtly self-confident, looking serious, looking angry, then dismissing everything the other person says as "postmodern Stalinist bullshit-propaganda". He would of course mention the Gulag-archipelago, C.G. Jung, Carl Rogers, Dostoevsky and mainly the Bible. At the end and/or during the discussion he would cry.
I think most of us here are already on board with the critiques. _Most!_ We still have to be checked from time to time because I'm looking at a big push to form a new and better top-down strategy to solve problems again with seemingly zero awareness that the process of forming such ideas inside insular clubs of white males has gotten us into this disaster in the first place... 😞
But!
For those of us who are self-aware of this, how do we go forward?
I like his idea about letting a team of Arabs have a go at the experiment to see if it gets the same results! I'm thinking that this would be helpful to do with all unique cultures.
But how do you deal with the problem of some of those cultures being explicitly top-down, male-dominated, totalitarian, oppressive, deceptive and comfortable with rewarding compliance with riches (what we might call "corrupt", but I'm trying to use neutral language)?
He is also Contexted. And some of his Context agrees with ours.
What about those who don't agree with our shared contexts of flattened hierarchies and good stewardship of the earth and nature?
I've been working with the idea that we need boundaries to keep Contexts that differ in similar ways separated. But these boundaries will be penetrated and then there are wars and then the strong end up being at the top and it all goes to shit again.
How do we *_really_* solve this?
Really enjoyed the conversation that formed and flowed between these two. Thanks RW.
Do people say power doesn't exist? We are power, even if we are taught that we are disconnected from it
To change anything in this crazy runaway civilisation, we need to change the way we do things. This requires a decisive move away from systems thinking, away from accepting the inevitability of multi-tiered social power hierarchies or simplified cause and effect hierarchies, which may be a highly effective way of viewing the world and going about our business, but is inefficient in the extreme and wholly unsustainable. Systems thinking is incapable of integrating with the complex and often incomprehensible nature of both humans and the natural environment. In its overuse, it has proven to be a dysfunctional and highly destructive way of organising our lives.
To my mind, the new beginnings are based on platform thinking (Platform = level playing field). There are plenty of examples in societies and communities around the world of this being a much more efficient and biodiverse approach, in tune with all the interacting effects and side-effects present in an interconnected world. Indeed, I believe it to be the only viable approach capable of not only sustaining life, but of helping it flourish, by virtue of humans learning to integrate co-creatively ...with everything within ourselves, ...and with everything out and about of us.
Platform thinking can be based on the following tenets:
- An integrating approach, where even the littlest voice is not only heard, but necessary to complete the circle of insight and understanding.
- An approach, where individuals no longer accept subordination.
- An approach, where abuse of power arising from people associating is recognised as a systemic threat to the community platform, as well as to the environment.
- An approach, where applied systems, theories, beliefs and narratives instead are kept subordinate to the integrating platform and to the well-being of community and natural surroundings.
-An approach that balances tradition and innovation, nurture and risk-taking (exploring natural limits and thus avoiding stagnation), doing and being.
-An approach that discourages ownership and encourages custodianship based on biodiverse life affirming activity.
-An approach that builds on personal fulfilment (autonomy) and expression (mastery) and enables mutual aid (purpose).
* * * * *
Thanks for sharing that. I would love to learn more about platform thinking, so if you have any specific groups or websites you can point me to, I'd appreciate it.
"As the custodial species of our planet, it's our unique gift to be able to adapt." How do we adapt? It seems the first step is to open ourselves. It seems we come back to the idea of individual responsibility.
" there aren't any solutions " :) Live well - do'nt let the dominant system steal the life you have. Create. Love. Create.
I want to buy the book on Kindle but it's not available in Ireland.
THE EMERGENT WORLD
In an emergent world, we constantly find ourselves somewhere between the formed and unformed. This, our world, is purely dynamic. It never stops. It is where life in all its facets develops, mutates, and evolves, ...every moment of every day.
So how do we experience this world? It is not through thinking, that's for sure.
From modern computer technology we know that all information can be expressed digitally in the binary system of 'one' and 'zero', that is to say in the cognitive system of 'it is' or 'it is not'. Thus, information could be subdivided into 'formed' and 'unformed'.
Clearly, the binary world-view of information is severely limited, as there exists a whole quantum world of possibility and probability between the two core values of either being or not being. Being neither one nor the other, but being transformative, being in flux, this area of our lives is often felt to be intangible. The trouble is that - due to their binary nature - cognitive thought processes can neither truly express nor access the quantum world. At best, they can only simulate it. This simulation takes place in the conceptual mind and creates for us a model of reality that endeavours to predict how reality works. It is a kind of forecasting system. The conceptual world is therefore never more than a virtual reality; it is no replacement for the real thing. So how do our minds compute or navigate the flowing dynamics of the world we daily experience? What do we do, when the dynamics are too fast or complex for our minds to rationally compute or we find ourselves in novel situations we've never before experienced?
This is where our intuitive capacities step in. However, any personal experience of this will soon make it clear that our intuitive mind can only be accessed, when we temporarily let go of our concepts and fears, which all reside in the cognitive mind. For most of us, this is not at all easy. Many find it hard to let go of a life's worth of conditioning. To my mind, this is where dyslexics and mildly autistic people have such an advantage, as to them, the mental concepts and constructs of society often seem limiting and alien. With practice and learned focus, they more easily avail of what Eckart Tolle calls the Power of Now, or of what Spanish flamenco musicians call Duende, the spiritual connection. It is the state of mind that racing drivers enter, when they become both part of the machine and part of their surrounding environment. It is also the way of being that most likely enabled Einstein to explore and develop completely novel scientific theories. With experience and logical rigour, intuition can be finely honed to work hand in hand with one's cognitive skills, lifting ability as well as insight and understanding to higher levels.
~ i.a.ugur, June 2015
Thanks for that explanation of concept I had no understanding of and reluctance to look at.is it a quote from someone (letters at the end) if yes could you give a source if no thanks again for taking time and effort to give us cogent,understandable ,high quality explanation of complex and fuzzy ideas
@@romansobak8333, thanks. It is some of my own writing and I thought it maybe helpful in navigating the rather vague non-conceptual essence alluded to in the video interview. To look at indigenous ways of being from a different angle, i.e. using a different narrative.
I use FB for long form writing and as way of sharing some of my political and philosophical thoughts, often based on personal experience. You can find it on FB and share it from there, if you want (or just include the credit and date at the end, as those are my initials :-) )
facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1067820939914082&set=pb.100000585575206.-2207520000..&type=3
mccougar - thank you for your elucidating comment as this is my understanding of our reality although I am not able to articulate it as fluent and intelligently as you. 🙏🏻
EXCELLENT content here!!!!! TY
Amazing!. I want more of this guy.
This is one of the most interesting interviews yet. I'm listening to it for a second time as I have been contemplating his ideas for more than a month now.
He’s fine, but the only thing “indigenous” about his thinking is that he is part indigenous and he is thinking. I liked his concept of writing a book in a way that invited multiple viewpoints into a discussion - that no two people would feel like they took away the same message from the book because it would maximally engage their unique positions. Beyond that, the conversation was drowned in a very similar post-modern interpretation that university professors have been selling for 10-20 years now. Maybe these ideas are fresher to Canadians, so they aren’t yet as sensitive to how functionally hollow they are outside of thought experiments.
anytime you name a system, you create and ideology and entropy will ensue--does that include the system of not naming a system?
@nonyadoodle that’s not always true anyways
Fuck... Well NOW it does .... Good job.
Pointing out performative contradictions always misses the point.
Thank you! What a great timing - it's the AFL's indigenous round this weekend! Hopefully we can share this around use this as fodder for some good yarns ❤️
I so much love the light hearted approach and the infectious laugh!
He sits there laughing at people criticizing others for critiquing others in shallow ways while he essentially calls everyone idiots. Um....
Focus on the wisdom in his words instead of getting stuck in the small imagined injustices. Transcend the usual narrative - you may be surprised.
Of the things people choose to critique, they always pick low hanging fruit. Cmon, Jack.
Community comes first. Everything else is secondary.
Wow, I didn't realise The Dude from The Big Lebowski had written a book!
Beautiful! Need to pick up this book ASAP. "Setting up the conditions to allow EMERGENCE". This is the basic rubik of game theory that is conveniently disregarded by lazy, zealous ideologues since facebook and twitter created the 'like and share' functions. Social media needs a "zoom out" or "perspective" function if we want to hop the tribal narrative walls.
Love this guy. Brilliant
There some reason you couldn't have made the video 1 second longer?
@ 1:00 “...foster the conditions for emergence.” AKA Free Markets.
I’m interested to know how the rest of the interview goes. The comments are all over the place, which usually means there will be something of interest to be found.
This guy has nothing valuable to contribute. I don't feel like I've learned anything from this so I'm not sure how this counts as wisdom unless we're talking about the wisdom of "knowing that you know nothing". It doesn't take 44 minutes to express that though... What a waste of time
For you to say nothing means that you’ve closed your ears. The conversation was directionless but it was scattered with a lot of aha moments if you pay attention, unless these were things that you already knew
It's tricky because he challenges the current rules.
@@cherishchang8400 yeah but those "aha" Sherlock Holmes moments seem just as narcissistic and overly certain as the ideologies he criticises. It's a lot of intellectual willy waving but it's riddled with so much nihilism and carelessness at the same time. His laugh just proves it.
The point of philosophy or ideology is to guide action so its not his ideas that matter at the end of the day, it's his actions - and he chose to write a book, which will probably be made from dead trees, for money that comes from an economic system that he sees as being in the wrong. He's all over the place. Hats off to the interviewer. I would have lost my patience with him
Cherish Chang I thought that I knew fair bit of what he was talking about and it still was a pleasure,emergence was my biggest learning. I haven’t heard anyone on this channel being so openly critical of Anglo culture,socio-political practices
Brendan Cahill I didn’t notice him criticizing ideologies besides the ideology of criticizing lol. What I gathered from his words is that there’s bad and good in both sides and there’s no need to criticize either. So many sides hold impartial truths and think they’ve found the whole answer. He conveyed his message with an ass-holish air to it, but that’s just how he communicates. If you think that invalidates his ideas and as a result you reject the 45 minutes of the video for that reason you’re perfectly just in taking that position but I’m not sure if you yourself legitimately think that he had nothing valuable to contribute. There’s a lot of wisdom in knowing that you know nothing, and for him to communicate that through an indigenous lens I think is very important.
A viewpoint not clearly understood by the wider world, trying to get folk to calm down, so they're able to hear him. A being over having mode. He hasn't strong answers to how to change the world, but that expectation is of the having mode.
This guy is the voice in my head daily !😝🔥
this is so great, I really, really hope you get the message
So it sounds like he’s saying that some fights should not be picked so violently because there is no winning them ( no solution to some of them). It’s like this fight that thinks if we bark at others enough we can turn them good from evil. Without realizing that we’re evil too. Not that we shouldn’t strive to overcome evil but to violently fight each other in hopes to force the evil out of the other seems like one of those fights. Like if we can just beat the evil out of others and not be the tyrant.
Agree. Only way we can have the real change we need, is by non violent means. Build strong communities that are sustainable & not dependent on big business & government, then take away their money. Chop them off at the knees because that's all they care about. Stop buying THINGS, stop paying bills, stop watching their movies, TV & radio, filled with advertising & pushing political agendas, take all the money out of their banks that they use to play with & control the general populace, stop giving them power. We've believed their bullshit for too long. Not a gun has to be raised to defeat them, not if we all stick together, weight of numbers is on our side.
We just have to convince everyone. It would be soooooo easy if people actually understood how imprisoned they are to their own life & their STUFF, but theirntoo busy being whipped into asubmission by news & letting themselves be entertained.
One can only hope.
@@Nobi72 All great in theory and I completely agree. The problem however is that people simply don't want to do the work. You say "build strong communities" but that means that someone has to be responsible for growing the food. Very soon you'd find that people would get fed up and go to the supermarket because we've all been taught that technology and progress was meant to liberate us not create more 'unnecessary work'.
@@igg3937 If people are still unaware of how important it is to change & scared of being independently responsible, they are obviously still too tuned in to media & accepting the narrow perspective on world views that it offers. It's our responsibility to make them aware of things they're not being shown. Not rabbit hole propaganda but big issues that if left unaddressed will cause more harm. For example, the affects colonialism set in motion, such as systemic race issues that are still being felt worldwide, tha capitalist reality that promotes self interest, while ignoring growing poverty & homelessness, climate change that began with industrialism & will continue to grow as a threat to everyone until big business is shut down & regenerative indigenous practices are combined with other models to restore balance.
I could go on but I had already set in my motion my plan to go directly to communities & spread this message in March but have pretty much been lockdown since. As soon as we"re released from jail, that is protecting us from a virus that we've had markedly less deaths from than the alarming jump in suicide, to realistically justify it's apparent purpose, it's the first thing on my agenda. I can't make others do the same but I can at least spread this information to as many as I can & hopefully those who see the big picture might do the same. I can only hope.
@@Nobi72 Again, that's great in an ideal world however I'm just being realistic; it's patently obvious that the vast majority of people just go about their daily lives with little consideration of the system that they're operating within. And that's fine, they have bills to pay, kids to feed, spouses to keep happy and stresses to deal with. But yes it's a depressing reality once you dig a little deeper into it. I'd be interested to hear any pragmatic suggestions you have with regards to how to address the imbalance. And i'd hesitate to blame capitalism: we're in a short-term depression at the moment however on the grander scale living standards globally have vastly improved over the last decade. And in comparison to, say 100 years ago, it's almost immeasurable. Life expectancy in the West was just 40 years in 1920. I'm not saying that's the only metric, but it's worth keeping in mind. 'Colonialism' has existed since the beginning of time too, can't blame that for everything either. What we're experiencing in my view is a spiritual crisis borne from a lack of purpose, meaning and faith. Technology has exceeded our spiritual and biological evolution to such a degree that people simply can't reconcile the difference - they want Star Trek and they want it now. They don't want to have to work for anything any more.
@@igg3937 I completely agree with you regarding the majority still lacking awareness of the all issues involved & the urgency required to alleviate the catastrophic effects, we could be forced to endure, if radical & gut wrenchingly fast action isn't enforced upon big businesses, to stop the obvious temperature rise, felt by so many of the world's citizen's.
It's not surprising that this very real crisis gets very little air time, considering media has long be little more than agenda pushing, propaganda filled nonsense. Real journalism died over adecade ago, maybe longer. I have heard people protest that some networks aren't affected but here in Australia, our only government funded network, ABC, while still sharing documentaries pointing out the very sad but real truth, that Australia still has a larger than wanted percentage of people who are either blatantly racist or completely apathetic to Aboriginal genocide, enslavement, displacement due to illegal appropriation of land, removal of their children & removal of any rights & freedoms they had. The history we teach in school, still to this day, mentions little about the truth & Aboriginal history is, modified to hide any atocities they endured.
Off topic much, I have a passionate belief in equality for all. Though the ABC is freer to share these stories, it is blatantly obvious that they are expected to not cause too much upheaval & report only about issues that won't disprove or question the stories on mainstream media, which Rupert Murdoch has been allowed to monopolise, after he obviously paid, swayed, bribed, threatened or simply asked for the law to be changed. Btw, Murdoch is a huge Trump supporter & imo, his puppeteer. I'm biased tough, I've hated Murdoch for years & had to stop watching mainstream because of his propaganda. UGH!
In a truly democratic country, government & big business wouldn't so obviously be in league.
I fail to see how else so many systems, designed to protect everyone, are so obviously failing, but capitalism is blameless? There is no other factor connecting them all & the failures are interrelated by the fact that they impact vulnerable, minority, expendable people & places.
Research shows that colonialism, industrialism & the rise of capitalism are all directly linked to climate change. I am a part of Extinction Rebellion & many different articles have been posted on their FB group, emails, & I have attended several Zoom meetings focused on climate emergency. I encourage you google them & check it for yourself. Check out their demand for Citizen's Assembly too. Totally amazing & sorely needed change
I have never been a fan of politics. It didn't take me long to realise that there is very little difference between the two main parties, neither keeps campaign promises, nor do they make allowances for working class, non of any real value, except the choice to increase welfare benefits, due to the fake pandemic imprisoning us in our own homes, skyrocketing suicide & mental health, closing down small businesses, making millions unemployed & big business are blissfully unaffected, isn't that lucky. I mean, the economy would collapse without them. What would we do? If only, I've been against the construct of money for a few years now. Would we cease to exist, or become unable to function if money suddenly disappeared? There would be glitches for sure but we would work it out. It would encourage the idea that less is actually more & if you can't get it locally then maybe you don't really need it at all.
I agree that my ideas are idealistic & you only know a small part of it, but I'd rather be Yung's visionary & believe in his idea, partially quoted for you "the birth of a personal myth in the imagination of one individual, or a group of individuals, can literally spread & change the world."
Because the hope of a future far removed from this fake, unbalanced, wrong, broken, irreconcilable, extinction chasing, miserable system, is the only thing keeping me from checking out of here. I refuse to go back to my previous life, struggling to feed, cloth & house myself & my 2 teenage kids. We'd be homeless if I didn't have my mum. I'm not going back, never going back. Only forward.
This interview was a little like "herding cats." Lots of enigmatic chuckles and nebulous thinking, that doesn't really go anywhere. Gave up 26 minutes in.
Surprisingly good talk. WTG Rebel Wisdom! WTB awesome, Dr. Yunkaporta. I neither agreed w/every point expressed by the prof, nor did I jump up and down upon hearing every question from the interlocuter. Particularly his "...(we humans) are the custodians of this planet..." misstep. If we killed all the cockroaches on Earth except just a few hundred, and kept these critters alive in a max boot chemical class 5 security underground bunker, where their rooms were completely contained within a poison-filled room, and more securities to make sure they could never escape, guess what? Within a few years eggs would be laid in the clothing of their caretakers, and we'd once again be living on a globe filled with roaches.
So, yeah: they're the "custodians," not us.
One good point: this 2 + 2 = 5 stuff. Of course those coming at others with this math are not approaching in good faith.
Loved the part about riding a bike that goes nowhere, lifting heavy stuff that does not need to be lifted. For years now I've been telling people why I like bicycling more than driving my car. When problems happen with other commuters I've sometimes found myself peddling faster, escaping. So stress is induced, then that stress is reduced by my racing. OTOH, while I'm driving, when those same kinds of problems happen, about all I can do is grip the wheel harder; so stress is induced, but then not reduced, not really, not enough. Results? Ulcers, cancer, etc. Hopping on a fake bicycle and riding to nowhere, and even peddling that stationary bike rather vigorously does not help because there isn't an active real reaction to some truck driver about to beat me up because he doesn't like my bicycling habits, followed by me smashing his side mirror, then escaping. Those motorists who drive after me very fast are (internally) "chasing down the little bunny," but not processing that stress in a healthful way. Their heart rates go up for a time while they twist and turn their steering wheels, but this only results in more stress, stress that they do not relieve in a healthy way.
Right at the end of TY's talk with Douglas Rushkoff, he introduces the idea that custodian applies to more than humans. Having fun exploring between Sand Talk and Merlin Sheldrake's just arrived Entangled Life which takes custodianship to a whole new level.
Thanks for this.
So I am an idiot if I dont agree with. Him?
Yay! Tyson.
The mocking giggle of fractal mysery
The "2+2=4" section failed to offer a new insight; in fact, I don't think the issue was addressed honestly at all, instead boring problemitizing was offered instead...these two should sit down with James Lindsay hash it out
What insight were you looking for, just out of interest?
@@ograzebrook the 2+2=4 was a huge thread to unpack..."Arabic numbers" was discussed within the thread....I'm not sure I could say what I sight i was looking for, but more than what they offered.
@@tonyklein4709 I just thought that was a load of childish cultural rebellion nonsense personally. I often think if you keep unpacking something like that, you can go down a rabbit hole of meaningless toss. The bit that irked me a little was the remark about the "theft" of Arabic numerals, as though cultures are not permitted to use systems from other cultures. It can be just as much flattery as theft. Considering he recognises natural law and dominance, that was a slightly contradictory comment I thought.
I think* I get most of this, and I consider myself classically liberal/libertarian. But while this whole cultural nonsense goes on, I'm still only vaguely interested in philosophy, whereas prior to this I had never read a philosophy book, probably because I'm an engineer.
Basically, this is talking over the heads of a lot of people that tend to be very useful and productive in society, whereas this to me seems as useless as the stationary bike he mentioned. No offense.
I can choose to value life for the beauty that emerges. Usefulness is subjective.
@@MrSears_1.618 Agreed, but when things get bad as I believe they will, these things will fall by the wayside and be replaced by "I need to make sure my family is safe and fed". I've read a bit of philosophy a while back, but I've switched to history and military tactics now as I believe they'll be more useful in the future along with the skills I already have.
@@fuzzyblue9880 Continue studying for as long as there is joy in it and it will flower. As a veteran of the US Navy I can tell you of the value I place on that knowledge. Fear is a consequence of an unfocused imagination causing a physical reaction. We all have a movie theater in our mind, make sure you have control over what shows and when.
@Mouchette L Yes, I have no problem with it. It's good. Any reasonable discussion is good. Also a fan of rebel wisdom. It was just an aside 👍
Cognitive dissonance as per encyclopaedia Brittanica may be a useful tool to understand not only what they talked about but also our (listeners) reactions to that
So what is he actually saying? Apart from pushing his book that is.
He is doing exactly what he is accusing others of. No society has ever been perfect and no society ever will be simply because societies are made up of imperfect human beings.
You're correct. I propose individual responsibility as a solution. Not in the manner of saying "You are responsible for this!" But that you can choose to react OR to realise you have the ability to respond in a manner of your choosing. Response-Ability
Chris Sears life as a supermarket,society as a background track?
@@romansobak8333 Yes, you have it's scent. That body is a pile of food, it's not You.
I'm pretty sure the powers that be are not concerned with how to feed everyone but to get rid of most !
I don't think that's entirely true, there is yin and yang in us all...it's not all darkness and dominance
Rebel Wisdom get out of my head...or go ahead and keep answering my current quandary. That works too. 🙏
Interesting mind on display here. He does give rather uncharitable stereotypes to those who are critiques of postmodern "power" based interpretations. Would love to see him engage actual arguments against what he so willingly defends.
Love how he laughs all the time :D
Emergence = Dao I have said it before, I will say it again. Read The Long Descent by John Michael Greer, if you want to have a good idea of what is coming. This guy says that there are no solutions. That is because this is not a problem that we can solve. It a predicament that we have to live through.
Not from the existing standpoint. He thinks this is the problem.
What Tyson is getting at with the weaving isn’t post-modern. It’s Integral. (Research Integral Theory)
A 1 of 2 Comment on post up to 3:30 mis.
A nice opening frame by Tyson Yukaporta. The dichotomy between state meaning and institutional vocabulary and indigenous meaning and the unique relations between particulars and ordinary language perhaps. To reference Hegel the on the ground relations are a universal particular, that is say family friends community are unique particulars that are universally present ( a paradox for sure contrast with Kierkegaard the particular universal as subjectivity If i have this the right way round ) the contrast Tyson is drawing is that between state as morality and the indigenous as ethical.
The problematic unfolds that the indigenous is post facto expressed through universal state vocabulary like contract law, family law, local community law. these since have been expressed as rights (indigenous rights family rights individual rights (the latter an abstraction for Hegel contra Kant). the notion of re-presenting these as right holders, or entitlements on the one hand protects them sustains them but on the other in the hands of state and capitalist institutions threaten them.
Thus we see the problem of the dichotomy of individual rights responsibilities capitalist liberalism and state right and responsibilities, becomes not two simply opposed institutions o for and one against the indigenous, but as both claiming, through right the indigenous as their own. For capitalist liberal institutions the indigenous must be turned over to efficiency a Taylorism in the community the domestic realm, an external efficiency metric now expressed as increasing opportunity for the individual. For the state this means protection of the concrete conditions real identities (contra Kant) But now this has become via law also as turning the indigenous over to its role in a equality and justice project . This means particular relations are owned by the state and those particulars are mere custodians of what belongs to the state. So for capitalist vocabulary parents for example become sedimented work trainers primarily, and for the state parents are just the de facto primary care givers. With reference to G.E. Moore naturalistic fallacy for the good ad W.D. Ross on casuistry duties for rights , the indigenous become mere contingent relations eventually actualised as subordinate to either or both capitalism and the state.
And so we see that Tyson is right about false dichotomies here but the risk is that we surreptitiously fall into a slightly modified version of one or the other and its tendentious process we just add to.
“All you can do is foster the conditions for emergence, and allow it to emerge, and just behave with integrity. The minute you have an idea and you think, “This is an important idea; everybody should know about this; everybody should be doing this.” As soon as you do that you’ve made an ideology, and you are stuffed. You’ve made a closed system, and entropy is the only thing that can ensue.” Tyson Yunkaporta
Ideology: A closed system in which only entropy can ensue.
But isnt it also the case that there are great ideas which we benefit from having had shared with us? Seems there some kind of compromise / middle ground to be found
@@Mart-Bro phew, unstuffed! good save
This is so good!!!
Lovely interview, resonates strongly with Taoism imho
19:18 there are always natural hierarchies . Their survival depends on whether they are just or not.
The unjust seem to be at the top of all the hierarchies at the moment. Was it your intention to point that out?
It’s good to have someone on this channel making a case for postmodernism, postcolonial theory, and indigenous thinking. There are legitimate critiques of positivism and scientism.
But when “wokeism” takes hold in the universities, it doesn’t create a beautiful integral synthesis combining inclusive thought with reason and rigour. It just installs its own power structures and tries to destroy science.
Yes, and how we believed them when they claimed their revolution would put subjectivity before strict rules, and where politics is governed by conflict, it would become governed by love, and replacing linear, closed, binary oppositions, with fluid, open, multiplicities. They were clever enough not to mention the word patriarchy back then either.
Love this. I absolitely believe hierarchy is anathema to us & the distortions thag arise when we live in cultures like ours. Bring on the communalism
Living in a hierarchy is as human as breathing air.
It’s the anarchy that does away with hierarchy communism is about dictatorship of the proletariat . I wander if even caveman societies had leaders,my bet is on yes
That was so refreshing. Rebel Wisdom is too orange and too faux yellow. Tyson gave that approach a good beating. And I like the idea of emergence. But I would say that we can keep the best of all knowledge systems in the process. Of course, we inevitably will anyway. The key, I think, is to see and negate the false rather than creating a new system. That means trusting ourselves and life at large, which Tyson was also pointing to.
No one is 'ignoring' power, or thinking it 'doesn't exist', I don't think. It's making everything about that which is the problem. And then we've got the 'arab mathematician' argument. Everybody in the 'West' is aware that algebra was pioneered by Arabs. We also know that they basically gave up on it in about 1500 because the newly empowered mullahs told them that all truth was revealed by the Prophet, exclusively, so all empiricism was unnecessary and even wicked. So Europe, beginning to take a contrasting attitude towards the controlling hand of religion upon science, took up the slack, and used the knowledge garnered from the Arabs - in some small part - to aid their scientific endeavours. Someone was going to, and a combination of factors meant that European societies had the capacity and resources to do it. And this was before any of these emerging nation states had begun their colonial projects.The only colonial project worth the name which was going anywhere near Europe at that time was a decidedly Arab one. But he's right about there being no solutions, and that ideology is useless. This is what this guy is good at, and why he's worth a listen.
Great
The world is sacred place, if you tried to control and FIXED IT, it's gonna be worse 🙏🏻
Not sure I am that keen on his style, seems a bit pompous. Have to admit I know nothing of Foucault, not studied philosophy or sociology formally. Not sure people have been delighted about the Beirut explosion disaster. Or Bhopal or the oil tanker in Mauritius. No, not convinced. Doesn't seem to add anything to other far better indigenous speakers and wisdom. All a bit weak
Your post is not making obvious sense to me was he expressing delight about Beirut explosions or any other disasters you mentioned if yes I must’ve missed it
@@romansobak8333 He was saying that people are not upset with disasters. I think that is a simplistic view
There is some very confused thinking going on here.
1) Emergence is when we find a different metaphor for different physical behaviour at a higher level of complexity. That's in every sense unrelated to what he said first.
2) He's right about the life/work balance being better in tribal times, but there's no way that can be relevant without first dealing with population control, which is not dealt with in Any indigenous ideology because no indigenous people ever had to live through or rectify overpopulation, particularly on a global scale. Likewise there are many other things that "indigenous thinking" simply cannot address today, like technology, nation-states, balancing customs of numerous tribes, on and on...
3) That many aspects of "progress" are bad doesn't indicate a) that indigenous thinking is relevant b) that indigenous thinking is good c) that "progress" is properly defined in this context d) that those problems are really of "progress" instead of capitalism or stupidity or some other large force.
4) Indigenous knowledge is only meaningful in an indigenous context. Same as a NYC dude going to the country. As a lens, sure, great. As solutions for the modern world? Give me a fucking break.
5) There are two distinct kinds of theory - the scientific kind which is that which is best supported by the evidence, as far as the relevant scientists can tell, and the vernacular kind, more akin to a guess. Both are predictions based on evidence but the regular use of the word, his use, doesn't give a whit whether your theory has evidence. All theories are wrong? Bollocks. How can i trust you to talk about knowledge in any sense if you think any theory is equivalent to any other, which is clearly false? "Every scientist will tell you, every theory is wrong, but some are useful."? This guy's been reading but not understanding philosophy. I'm done here.
Power is balanced by Love and Wisdom. Love emerges thru the balance of Will/Feel. Love is the fulcrum of Life/Death, if you will allow it...
@Winston Smith lol, I've got my own damn boat, i don't need to ride on yours, thanks for the offer tho
Can you elaborate a bit? Is Power "balanced" by Love and Wisdom so it doesn't get misused.
What do you mean by Love being the fulcrum of Life and Death? In what sense is it a fulcrum?
@Winston Smith I mentioned boats. That was my side of the conversation. Are you familiar with that happening? Look for attention elsewhere, this is the last you get from me.
@@jtzoltan 1. Yes. 2. When Love is felt deeply and is "attached" it becomes objectified. To reduce life to objects alone is to ignore the forest for the tree. A forest is not an object, yet it exists. I can show you many examples of the consequences of Love and your experience with those consequences allows you recognize when Love emerges.
Chris Sears yours is lofty,idealistic proportions when it comes to power I prefer it balanced by social consent and accountability
He misunderstands, or misrepresents, Lindsay's point with 2 + 2 = 5 by turning it into an debate over how Arabic scholars might think the numerals are misused. The point was clearly this: two objects and two more objects are four objects, not five. This is a fundamental fact, and your "standpoint" or epistemological view of it does not change this.
There are various forms of representing.
@@evanhadkins5532 Of course, but that isn't the point Lindsay was making. We could argue all day what different symbols to use for math, and there can be a real debate on that, but there is an objective fact that undergirds it - two objects and two more objects are four, not five. The case being made by many against Lindsay is that there can be a different way of knowing that makes 2 + 2 = 5, which he is pointing out is not true.
@@Scaevola77 What Lindsay misses is that representations differ. There may be an exterior world (I think there definitely is) but the way we talk about and think about makes a difference. Our perceptions are educated (we are social beings). Science fiction can be good at highlighting this kind of thing. Eg Vonnegut's slaughter house five where the little green men see lines rather than points. This is true to the exterior world: everything 'moves' through time.
@@evanhadkins5532 I don't disagree that there can be significant differences in the way we perceptive the world, and I think that Dr. Yunkaporta makes a great point of illustrating that perhaps we need to be looking at other cultures to seek the great knowledge and truth in them.
But there is bedrock, and math is one of them. Lindsay is pointing out that if we cannot agree on something such as math, then there is nothing we can agree on. You cannot build skyscraper or create a hydro power station without math and an understanding of physics. There are no different ways to interpret the law of fluid dynamics, regardless of your standpoint.
@@Scaevola77 There are different mathematical 'languages' too, eg. non-euclidean geometry. The problem with 'objectivity' is that it distinguishes the real facts from the theory (which is tested and can be falsified by facts); but then the theory gets defended as real/true.
He seems less grumpy in this interview with Jim Rutt (although, I thought the current interviewer was pretty good): ruclips.net/video/whRVg1itU50/видео.html
He’s definitely not a fan of current western culture. Although his answers to direct questions seemed most often evasive, when he talked himself onto turf he wanted to discuss, his criticisms were quite sharp; he can be perfectly well understood when he chooses.
I’m not sure what his point was on the "2 + 2 = 5" issue. Does he want all mathematicians to place a footnote in all publications thanking the Arabs for inventing the numerals, number system (and major parts of mathematics)? What happened to the indigenous sharing economy? Do we have to pay for everything?
@Mark Tomasetti your comment could be a base for an analytical treaties on bad faith.
Ya he did seem a little toasty
@@romansobak8333 - Well, some of my remarks were flippant and could be taken as rude. I've removed them. The rest are just observations/reflections on what he said.
@Mark Tomasetti thanks for the link. I'm a big fan of this channel but found the Jim Rutt interview more satisfying.
A 3 of 2 conclusion comment
To stick with Einstein, What were contingent possibilities in the past have become necessities for the present. This notion of imminence and history should make for a radical rethinking of historical understandings of capital liberalism and social justice projects.
From within thinking in terms of an indigenous standpoint we can place as transcendent errors both these sciences. In a way I think, Kant didn’t go far enough into transcendental history and what this means with respect to Ectype and archetype and regulative infinite projects when we understand the schematism historically and the analogies of experience w.r.t. the above view. (See also Foucault on the historical a priori)
I think we can use the historicised schema as condition for valid notions of the ectype and archetype and so Critique there backward transcendent erred use and forward immanent teleological transcendent (?) use and use this a criteria to check when an indigenous project can fall back into a version of these two scientific traditions. Less as some have commented Tyson’s project just becomes a new version of one or both these traditions.
There is a good stuff here but I think his analysis of state is very shallow also, there are very different models of states that are much more community and collaborative based, like the social democratic regimes in the Nordics.
Is blockchain and cryptocurrency creating systems to distribute power more fairly and did these arise from the conditions of emergence he spoke of?
I had a insight just now I would like to share:
I was listening to Alan Watts talk about laughter being the experience of tension between inside and out or spirit and the world). He pointed out there are different ways of viewing the same thing and sometimes you take it seriously and sometimes not. The insight came because I was just recently laughing while talking to people about the US political narratives. The reason I was laughing is because they took seriously something I thought was a complete joke. And I was laughing at their whole perspective because it was funny that anyone takes any of this seriously.
So I determined that this type of condescending laughter is because the person just sees through the position of the other they are talking with, as well as any perspective they themselves may offer. It’s not that one is true and the other not, it’s that both are untrue. Tyson was talking about spinning yarns, that’s the giveaway that he’s approaching it from a perspective of not buying into his or other perspectives (at least in that moment).
The reason why I think it’s important is that this is a valuable perspective to have right now. Not buying into any narrative, and refraining from taking any of it seriously. Though the laughter at the other may come off as condescending, because in that moment the other person is really taking it seriously, and is completely bought in. However it’s not a personal laughing down at the other but just the act of observing the difference between the different reactions to the same thing. I think framing this as some idea that will save the world was the original title and frame, and that right there makes me laugh harder than anything, the idea that a idea will save the world!
And I laugh at myself too because I believed that very thing from age 20-30.
As a note I think the perspective is not that you believe the other person may be right or you may be right, it’s that you know (in that moment) (from that perspective) that no narrative is ever or has ever been true. The laugh is about how there are billions who take their story seriously.
So the reason I point this out is because this perspective is so valuable, especially in these wild times. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
...in a way western Mathematics is set up with an optional binary logic ...the axiom is: given any two objects either they are identical with each other or different. However we could reformulate maths and logic with a non-binary axiom which says: given any two objects either they are identical with each other or different or one is part of the other (as a whole) or that one is the whole which the other is a part. What would maths and science look like if we did this?
I seem to be working on this as part of what i am doing at the moment. My understanding so far is that say in Leibnitz A=A therefore Not (A and not A) are the logical laws of identity and non-contradiction. but in shifting from logic to metaphysics we then get that no two objects can be identical in every way in all properties, attributes, predicates, descriptions ect. and not be the same one object. Thus all objects that are epistemologically and metaphysically distinct, are distinct by a property description predicate attribute ect. Difference. The kind of project this leads to is a hyper rationalism where in, Kant's terminology the contingencies of experience are in principle derivable from concepts alone. A full conceptual understanding would capture all empirical experience and detail. Kant disagrees in that, position in space is not a matter of relations between objects and so not a matter of property predicate ect difference. This means we turn to experience in its endless detail of an object of experience and none of this is derivable form concepts alone. The project is to turn to experience and it's conceptual articulation.
If you are interested in going there the Kant argument about space is in the Critique of Pure Reason section called The Transcendental Aesthetic, and the argument against Leibnitz is the section The Amphiboly of the Concepts of Reflection.
If you really have time on your hands you could look at Hegel’s take on this in his science of logic and his reformulation of these logical laws. His claim is now interpreted by some to be that when we refer to an object with a predicate, property, S is p, we are at once committed to or involved with S not being not p. and perhaps then metaphysically ontologically this S is now a member of all the p’s in the universe and not a member of all the not p’s in the universe. So reference to an object and the logic of identity are not primitive notions but in a “space of reasons” (Wilfred Sellers) and being and non being. This account is disputed at the moment and my rendering might not be entirely correct for any position. I’m just beginning this stuff in Hegel. My point of including this on Hegel is that much of the discussions now on difference complexity radical contingency non binary ect can be traced back though Deleuze (Difference and Repetition 1968) back to Hegel and the Kant Leibnitz debate. I hope this might have been of some interest.
Conclusion
The implications for mathematics and science concern then whether an axiom system is appropriate to quantitatively representing modeling the world at all. While we have complexity theory chaos mathematic it seems to point to a limit to linear representation and cannot so to speak model chaos. which i guess would be a kind of conceptual confusion anyway chaos means no model. I can't imagine axioms of chaos mathematics except to draw limits form inside linear mathematics. I think complexity just points to empirical detail not derivable form concepts alone but not non-conceptual as such. This is not new though fluid flows and thermodynamics were beyond Newtonian analysis. The modern change is a proof of this limit as opposed to just saying its complex if we had all the variables we could work it out. (This is Zizek's view i think anyway.)
@@harveyyoung3423 thanks for the reply ... will take a look
@@socraticsceptic8047 If you have not studied philosophy I ought to say that it will be a long and difficult undertaking. I would strongly suggest not to start reading the primary Leibniz Kant (Hegel be afraid very afraid) texts. Either start with some university lecture courses on Leibniz and then on Kant (there are many find one you can enjoy) or just focus on your problem of the logic identity and difference ( as a problem involving logic metaphysics ontology and epistemology ) ad work into the Leibniz and Kant context as you require. Its like climbing everest without rope otherwise. But as Geoffrey Warnock said in his interview on Kant in the 70's if you get there its rather makes all the others look like amateurs. I have done a lot on this stuffs relation to mathematics (issue is the necessity of a subject predicate distinction but this though through the necessity of conservation principles of substance and causality. for me the logic of identity has its life here and so does in terms of your central question, the outline of an answer to "how is mathematics and natural science possible" .
I
Hope this helps, good luck and enjoy
I have come across a real world example that draws these ideas into view and ties the discussion better to you question about mathematical axioms
I thought you might be interested in a real world example (not just an application) of these logic metaphysical epistemological problematic. If you are in the UK you may have been following the exam algorithm story. In a way we could consider the algorithm as a conceptual approach. it is not purely conceptual since it draws on empirical data but it a cautionary at least in that it takes the data as a probability density and then re-presents the world from its probability function. this then has the effect of a kind of ignorance to the specific cases. all subsumed under a prior probability density function. The problem with a focus on the case alone though is the inability to link them e.g. linked in a synchronic space with other cases at the same time, and linked in a diachronic time consistent with others cases past and future.
The dialectic that results has the form of
either we emphasize the cases uniqueness, then we have no intuition the relations in the present and no continuity and so no real world condition for mathematicalisation no metric structure of relations e.g. the Axioms of transitivity commutivity associativity reflection and identity (this is the category of identity or indexical reference.) We loose these mathematical axiom conditions as we lose the condition of continuity (as i mentioned conservation or symmetry principles
or, we emphasize the above conceptual conditions and loose the specific respect dignity of the case under the pre given (but empirically grounded ) continuity conditions.
this can't be dealt with at the level of the probability space of Bayesian statistics (which is what the algorithm probability used) because the probability space PRESUPPOSES diachronic and synchronic continuity. as its prior condition of possibility.
this is a very Kantian way of elucidating this problematic. it is of wide scope though in that social justice equality is also predicated on prior general data a terms and so obliterates THE UNIQUENESS THE INDIVIDUAL CASES NOT TO MENTION CASES NOT UNDER THEIR SPECIFIC CONCEPTUAL CARVINGS AND BINARY OPPOSITIONS. INTERSECTIONALITY IS THEIR ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THIS SORT OF PROBLEM BUT REMAINS A REPRESENTATION OF PRIOR CONCEPTUAL CARVINGS A MULTIPLICITY OF BUT STILL REMAINING RATIONAL CONCEPTUAL CASUISTRY RE-PRESENTATION.
I think this is of general interest so i will post a version of this in the general comments section with reference to yourself also
The West has been looking for answers in all the wrong places. For the past 500 years or so we have been completely ignoring the knowledge of the 'conquered' cultures while looking for the meaning of life in our own background, and suddenly along come books like Sand Talk and show us things we need but didn't even know we were looking for. I hope there is more opening up of indigenous knowledge to replace what we have lost from our own culture.
A 2 of 2 comments
To put the problem in familiar terms for Rebel Wisdom then, can a focus on the indigenous and imminence and projects of local emergence ignore the modern arrival of the state and commerce structure? Can we just forget out the thermodynamic ontology of equilibrium capitalism and or the geometry of the structural state? That is can we escape and return like Robinson Crusoe or are these structures, although contingently historically emergent, now for us a necessary horizon of the possible. E.g. perhaps useful to think of this as framed in terms of Kant’s Schematism, Typic (the ambiguity of the good) ectype and archetype. That is these two sciences each have images although not given in experience or as a finite human end, are horizons, regulative ideals, demanding their impossible actualisation as infinite projects. I think there is, from here, no way back to before these structures came into being. We cannot, now, make a move, an act that takes us to some point in the past and reopen a contingent possibility that was possible then. In terms of the possibility frontier now, that past possibility of counter factuality, has become the “absolute elsewhere”.
What does he keep laughing about?? Is he high on peyote?? We want to laugh too...
I’m guessing he was laughing at the notion that discussions, ideas, theories and model building will change or save the world. I think he sees all the chaos and vitriol in the culture war and all these intellectual masturbations as part of the problem and the solution if I’m getting him right is to lighten up about all this stuff, similar to What Stephen Fry said was needed in the Munk debate with Peterson- less certainty and a willingness to play lightly with the ideas. Something JBP should take to heart since he’s so emotional about it all.
@@michaelnice93 Yes, you should lighten up. None of what you just explained was funny. We're gonna go with "high on peyote". Thanks anyway...
Well I don’t know Tyson, but it could also be a sense of superiority. I get the sense that RW is not his normal audience. Or he could just be stoned.
But if that’s the case than smoke up buddy, you can laugh too.
I personally don’t give a shit about him or his message, just using him as a foil to express ideas. Somehow I think if he was on Peyote he would not be able to give interviews. I don’t care what he’s on, he could be huffing cat urine on camera for all I care I’m here for the discussion.
I don't think one idea is applicable. The idea of one story to rule them all is just impossible.
Also, which definition of power are we talking about?
Gotta keep that fridge clean!
Interesting