Episode 88: Jonathan Pageau/Bernardo Kastrup 2: Consciousness, Meta-Consciousness, God, and Morality
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Welcome to More Christ. We seek to bring some of the world's most interesting and insightful guests to discuss life's central and abiding questions.
In this eighty-eighth episode in a series of discussions, I'm joined once more by Jonathan Pageau and Dr Bernardo Kastrup.
Jonathan carves Eastern Orthodox and other traditional images. He also designs products, teaches, and makes fantastic videos for The Symbolic World that explore how ancient patterns can re-enchant our contemporary life.
Please check out Jonathan's channel:
/ jonathanpageau
Bernardo Kastrup is the executive director of Essentia Foundation. His work has been leading the modern renaissance of metaphysical idealism, the notion that reality is essentially mental. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another Ph.D. in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence).
As a scientist, Bernardo has worked for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the 'Casimir Effect' of Quantum Field Theory was discovered). Formulated in detail in many academic papers and books, his ideas have been featured on 'Scientific American,' the 'Institute of Art and Ideas,' the 'Blog of the American Philosophical Association' and 'Big Think,' among others.
Two of my top favorite people bringing together two levels of reality
Very inspiring conversation
This was great. I also think a Matthieu Pageau conversation with Bernard would be super interesting. Both have a computer science background.
Matthieu would be a great foil for Bernardo! I was very impressed with him on JBP recently.
They would both be speaking in 1s and 0s by the end of the conversation. It would be awesome.
@@Hitlerbaddaringood affirmative 0110000101100110011001100110100101110010011011010110000101110100011010010111011001100101 (literally)😊
@@MoreChrist Paul VanderKlay commented recently that The Pageauian Bros books are now part of this corner of the internet’s Canon. I’ll try and find it again. Do you have Discord, Good Sir? ☦️
I respect Bernardo. He’s a very intelligent and seems like a good person. I will sum up this conversation in the simplest way possible. One of them is looking up while the other is looking down.
Even in their literal physicality hah
The more people push back on Jonathan, the more I understand him. Thanks for the video
I have become a HUGE fan of friendly pushback. An example of this against Dr. Kastrup can be found here:
ruclips.net/video/jylqAohnzRY/видео.html
As a Christian I feel sad reading so many defensive comments Bernardo is a true gem and a gift to our times
To me, listening to Bernardo is tantamount to the first time I heard Chopin. Conspicuous genuis with undertones of genuine curiousity and kindness. Although hes much more eloquant at describing them, so much of what he says resonates deeply with thoughts, feelings, and experiences of my own. Thank you, guys, for bringing this conversation to fruition. Hearing this was truly monumental to me.
These guys are great together.
I think so too!
Thank you Marcas for bringing these 2 together once again! I was personally born and raised in a fundamentalist baptist community, then changed to a pentecostal church during high-school, but after years of exploring other cultures around the world I've since become agnostic. Both Bernardo and Jonathan have really helped me navigate through questions I have about spirituality and consciousness. The first episode left me wanting to hear more, so this follow-up was great. Although now I am looking forward to a part 3 since this episode also left at such an interesting point about morality. Cant wait for more!
Thank you! I hope your journey bears good fruit. :)
Have you come full circle back to Christ, perhaps in a non-fundamentalist way?
Witnessing a coming to agreement after a push back of disagreements is quite satisfying.
The fact that we get to watch minds like this interact over fascinating ideas on RUclips is incredible. I imagine similar convos used to exist in the hallowed halls of synagogues and academia, now they are on RUclips. Clown world also has amazing benefits.
Bernardo and Vervaeke are the perfect people to push back on Jonathan’s ideas of hyperagency, in so doing the concept is better revealed.
"Clown world." It seems Hermes and Elegba are the god(s) of the internet, the shopping mall, and popular music (cf. history of the Blues). Speaking with the authority of the Heavenly Man in Legba's domain is inevitably going to benefit everyone. As either Fr. Damick or Pageau (I don't remember which one) stated in a recent discussion, Jesus is the standard by which the gods will be judged. It seems that we are seeing some of that judgment play out.
Do you still find Jonathan’s concept of hyper agency convincing or has either of the two guys you mentioned weakened it in any way
I think bringing in Tomberg's meditation on "the Sphinx" would be helpful when it comes to their discussion on evolution and the "fall" from the stream of instinct into self consciousness, which ends up being a felix culpa, allowing man to rise back up the wheel by self-conscious (and therefore free) obedience to God, culminating in a synthesis of "divine animality-natural divinity" (ie the Sphinx)
I couldn't help but think of the conversation between Alyosha and Ivan Karamazov, while watching this. Bernardo is Ivan and Jonathan Alyosha. Bernardo was certainly more persuasive, to me, as was Ivan. But yet, persuasion and power and analytical reasoning always exhausts itself, in my own experience. It drove Ivan insane(Nietzsche too). But if we can withstand the insanity and let that too exhaust itself, there is something or someone behind it all who takes it from us. "Only drowning men can see Him", says Leonard Cohen. The Crucifix is the ultimate Christian symbol, and it trumps any worldly argument with a deep thoughtful glance. The almighty, Crucified and mocked, emptied himself of His divinity. Sacrificed himself for the life of the world. And He still does. His is the the only reality. All else is senseless. "He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world knew him not."
Thank you! Already looking forward to the third conversation.
Thank you for doing this again! Bless all in involved.
Thank you, Matthew! God bless you, brother.
This was the best conversation I've ever heard. Thanks
One of the best conversations ever recorded! Even better than the first one.
This was so helpful to me. What a great conversation . . . Laura
I think Michael Levin's work on morphogenesis could shed some light on the identity boundaries front. Would love to see the three of you talk about this.
How can his work shed light? Do you mind expounding?
A word, contrary to Bernardo's point about non-meta consciousness not being able to be aware of itself. Yes that's logically consistent, but oddly enough, in non-dual states in meditation, the experience is of consciousness without any contents, yet 'pregnant' with its own 'self'-awareness (in a ground of being way). You have to experience yourself to know really. I always recommend Michael Taft meditations if you wanna try, for free
Wow, I was forward to this level of conversation. Thanks!
Amazing discussion
An interesting experiment would be relating all this to sports or to war. Let's say two people who don't know each other play the same sport, the sport has an angel and both enter into the same "dreamspace" to play it, but it could be that two players are playing different positions and the dreamspace of that role is different, like a different angel. The same could be said for war and the way in which war evolves over time (and one could even see a spiritual relationship between war and certain sports). When somebody says "this person is playing a whole different game" referring to another who's so far advanced that their spiritual experience of the game is different, there's a tension between the nominal category of the game as defined by its rules, and the game as defined by its lived and embodied spiritual reality. This person I'm referring to is both playing the same game and another game altogether, in the sense that you can probably see in the rules of the game the promise of this next game, as you can see in war the promise of even virtuous things hidden within, but here's the problem for the Christian: what's the relationship between all of these spirits. Because hierarchy would generally subsume them all into neat categories, but psychology would mix them up.
I think the solution is being able to integrate both: to see certain images and perceptive patterns as being able to serve good or ill and not having to give them spiritual entity. Just like an evil person might possess a great virtue, so too could a virtuous pattern be expressed by an evil entity for evil. The devil can quote Scripture. Is the expression of that virtuous pattern made vicious by its evil employment? In a sense, yes. In a sense, no. That is the true sense of illusion. We are given the illusion of virtue, through an indistinguishable spiritual pattern. Somehow the stitches are always there. The evil intention tacked onto the half-truth. These spiritual entities are whole and at the same time immeasurable. They are too big to be captured, and they also combine and confuse themselves. We are limited so naturally we cannot see them in their totality, we shouldn't and needn't. But we could see enough of them as they manifest to be responsible for what we choose. And although we might not see that, although there's a space for blindness in ignorance, that ignorance is willful. It is pride: putting our self-defined needs above reality.
Pageau himself is talking about this... If David takes on the imagery of the dragon... not all "dragons" are bad. Or maybe they are bad but they are understood as a necessity under duress rightfully afforded to us by God after the fall. In a sense the possibility for doing evil must be integrated for us to reject it, and it that way it is rejoined from being fractured by Cain and Abel. In a sense Abel was too different from Cain to defend himself, and it showed a lack in him that the knowledge of Evil would solve.
🔥 Much to chew on here
Yep, the Cain and Abel story ain’t about black and white, rather about relationship and the levels or points of view rather than hierarchy are lost in rigidity. Goethe’s Faust deals with this complexity. Illusion of evil can snap into settled stability and vision in the wink of an eye : the Gospels tell the story over and over again. When all is good, evil is knocking at the door. There is no fringe, man. Even someone slightly reinforcing the good, can open the door to perdition. Coincidence of opposites.
"The illusion of virtue".
I disagree.
Virtue applies order in relationships, be it with humanity and in heaven. Goodness extends beyond selfishness, and altruism asks for nothing in return.
There are fields of study outside of the realm of "science" that should be considered. They provide tangible examples to things that may expand on the view on consciousness.
I can entertain the idea that in a fallen world there must be millions of tangled-up moral situations that we cannot even start to comprehend. (I sense some inherent (moral/value) "laws" coded in the function of the world which will play themselves out in "timelessness". (The intermediary space according to Wolfgang Smith - recently on the Meaning Code channel with Jonathan)). We also know that suffering can often lead us to more integrity or humility and seemingly "good" conditions can be precursors to immorality. Who are we to judge?- as Bernardo says. - Anyway, big, big thank you for this conversation, must be continued sometime soon!!
The tie-in to The Meaning Code conversation with Dr Smith and Jonathan is very helpful.
I am seeing many parallels between the thinking of Dr Kastrup
and Dr McGilchrist, which would be a fascinating discussion.
Ideas of values coded within the function/order? of world sounds interesting. Like a die, maybe. Helps explain the stability of things amongst the detritus.
Karen's doing great things! :)
Lovely dialogue , been imbibing on the ASMR of Bernardo Kastrup’s analytical idealism for the last few weeks , it’s a welcome departure from panpsychism though I’m indebted to process thought. Bernardo on discussing theodicy near the end does seem to open the world up to gnostic thought with an evil demiurge (or modern update of a simulation or evil alien) which heretical to mainstream Christian though it may be , might seem to explain theodicy , otherwise it’s an impersonal Mind , im willing to side with the latter but can’t completely dismiss the former .
This was great. Thank you!
Thank you, Juilius!
@ 1:39. There is a non-anthropomorphic position that might at first blush appear to be a penultimate paradox. It is the Divinity working itself out. Intelligence becoming "conscious" through manifestation which is neither the "result" of what we currently continued dichotomize between predetermination and free will. A third position that slips between the threshold of conceptualization.
Another wonderful talk. But I do believe that they stretched the whole China analogy waaaaaaay over it’s useful limits😂
Great conversation!
Thanks!
This was great.
ROUND 3, ROUND3, ROUND 3!!!!
Another wonderful conversation! Thank you 🙏 When do we get Part 3?
Good question! I'll get in touch with the guys in the New Year and see when we can make it happen. I want to give them a break for a while. Especially Jonathan, who I always try and rope into conversations. Haha
18:31 there actually IS seemingly literal similarities between immune systems and armies that’s why we talk about immune systems FIGHTING illnesses etc etc. how does one not see that??
❤❤❤❤
You would need to already have meta cognition to make the choice outside instinct. I.e eat the fruit.
Concerning Bernardo’s example of Multiple Personality disorder as an argument for multiplicity being Maia- his answer seems to beg the question and assume his Idealist presuppositions of the one being greater than the many. Every person experiences a degree of what might be called “Multiple Personality Disorder” because every person will manifest different spirits at different times; the same person is often capable of giving flesh to both the vice of wrath and the virtue of charity within the same day, which reveals a fallen multiplicity within the person. This is the sin of pride: the spirits to which a person gives flesh manifesting themselves out of line with Logos, thus giving birth to disteleology in a person and their actions. Multiple Personality Disorder as defined by the medical community is just this very disteleological multiplicity scaled to a higher degree. Bad unity is only able to be manifested by bad multiplicity.
However, multiplicity also manifests itself in positive manners- the person is capable of manifesting not only charity, but also forgiveness. When integration occurs and unity is properly embodied, the multiplicity doesn’t go away- it falls into proper alignment with the self, the community, creation, and most fundamentally, the God-Man, Jesus Christ. This is Theosis; the one cannot be one without the many.
The example of Korah’s rebellion in the scriptures would be a useful image for this. The unified spirit of Israel is manifested in integrated multiplicity with (approximately) Christ as the mind, Moses as the mouth, the priesthood as the actions of the mind as dictated by the mouth, and the laity as the body that upholds the actions. However, when Korah and his men step out of their proper place in Israel’s unified multiplicity and attempt to usurp Moses’ role, they manifest pride and embody a schism within the mind of Israel (that is, a second personality as is seen in MPD) because they step out of their proper place as the foundation that upholds and embodies higher levels of Israel. As a result, the only way for them to be re-integrated is for the earth (that is, the foundation that upholds Israel where Korah’s proper place originally was) to open up and swallow them, i.e. for them to return to their true role in creation from which they stepped away.
Same story is found in the demon of Legion that Christ casts out.
And the Sons of Korah were spared for God had plans for their reintegration
In fairness he is a bit self-aware of this
Is that quote from Chesterton really true, though? Weren't we made from earth? Wasn't Adam made from Adamah? If we recognize our Creator being distinct from the creation, but in Christ there is union without confusion or mixture, does the understanding that nature (or at least, Earth) as our mother actually pose a problem?
Both is good for me, and even lover under the right circumstances. I think Chesterton would agree, beyond the aphorism. :)
@@MoreChrist Ah, I hadn't thought of both or as lover, but quite right. Thank you, brother.
Could the scientific understanding that there was death and violence in the animal kingdom before the rise of humans be understood in the Christian perspective by viewing this period as part of the “chaos” that had to be organized during God’s days of creation?
Pageau is on a role the last few days...
subbed for sure
What version of the "Praise Him" song are you using in your introduction? It is beautiful.
Nyazura Mission Church Choir: Praise Him. (I am going there)
:)
Imagine God being ominscient and omnipresent. You meet your friend and you're looking at him looking at you and realize God is looking from both vantage points simultaneously, to infinity and beyond too.
It’s all more simple then folks can grasp bc we overlook so much that we just take for granted.
Basically God “The Father” is the origin of light or “consciousness “ Who through “God the Word” or Christ manifests through us to create everything and with out Him nothing was created that exists’. In other words the consciousness from the Father takes form through the Logos and this all takes place through us. The real “I” is Christ who lives through you. “Not I who live but He who lives through me…” This is to say that your real self is the Christ, the Son of God. The Father creates the universe through all of us in the form
Of a divine dream. God has created the best of all possible worlds but we just can not see the world as it is. Our level of being isn’t high enough to be able to perceive the real world. If everything is a divine dream then evil is just an illusion, a fantasy. You see God has a problem. He can not die. So he creates a world and a life with the illusion of death. He “forgets Himself” and intentionally gets lost in a dream to become you and me. This is the great secret of all life. It’s just you have to experience this truth to understand. It’s just as Bernardo states, that the universe is intentionally created (in the mind of God) for a specific purpose. I will leave it to you to work out that purpose. This all can be verified and the Bible describes all these things as well as it can be said.
“In the beginning was God and the Word was with God and the Word was God…” it is all said right there. The Word became flesh. Not simply Jesus. The Word became all of us. To realize these truths is the secret of the Second Coming. It all can be verified through personal experience. Glory to God for all things….
Oh and creation is happening every moment. In the beginning is NOW. The Last Day is this eternal moment. Christ said that those who believe in Him will be lifted up on the Last Day. So if you could awaken just now and remember yourself you could believe and then be lifted up and brought before the Father of Lights. There everything you ask in “ My Name” will be granted to you.” There the mysteries of God and the universe are all revealed. Or maybe a few more mysteries are still awaiting to be revealed. Glory to God. This is the Good News. This IS salvation. When we are joined back together with Him we receive His eternal Life. All things come from God and all things return to God. Describe a better universe. Sure man can do much better. And if just a few hundred could truly wake up. Then the change we seek could begin. Like a wedding party just before the vows. Welcome Home and come on in…
1:05:43 i believe that _without_ Calculation (tree search) even the top machine learning system for chess cannot beat the best humans; it is its best *only* when it refines intuition via calculation
Bernardo's answer to the good and evil question and that of morality is not really adequate. He assumes a naturalistic universe, nobody ever attempts to say how a naturalistic universe could exist. As it is either a universe from nothing or an infinite regress. Then Bernado says it is up to us to make the morals etc. He says that morality does not need to be grounded outside of ourselves, but it does. Because without an objective morality, then all morality is subjective. The make-your-own-morality may work temporarily, but ultimately leads to wars and destruction because both parties genuinely believe they are in the right.
Objective morality is NECESSARY for a loving creation to unfold. Without objective standards in good and evil, right and wrong, logic or absurd, loving or hostile, there are no standards. We cannot create the standards of the universe, we can create out own standards, but that is only a temporary stop gap before our own standards clash with someone else's own standards.
If the universe is a cosmic accident then there is no morality. There can be no meta conscious. A meta consciousness made the universe and a meta consciousness has objective morality. We are not animals. We are not descended from animals. Bernardo needs to look at his evolutionary beliefs again. Micro evolution exists, and has been known about since mankind existed. Micro evolution is things like cross breeding wheat to get a better wheat product. Or finch's beaks lengthening or shortening according to their particular environmental needs. Or colour changing of fur/skin to camouflage better.
But Macro evolution is the changing of one species into another. For example a bacteria 'evolving' into a fish, which then 'evolved' into a land animal, then 'evolved' into a whale, that kind of macro evolution has NEVER HAPPENED. There is no evidence for it at all and the fossil record debunks Darwin absolutely.
37:23 it’s simpler to distinguish between ocean and river but what about a stream and the river? Can someone draw a line where the transition occurs?
The fall from the Garden of Eden can be represented as one type of compartmentalized hyper self consciousness or meta consciousness, whatever terms we decide to play with. However, the implicit notion that it was was somehow evolutionarily inevitable and that neuroanatomically and neurophysiologically (biopsychosocially) that was the path that the evolution of intelligence/consciousness needed to take in order to manipulate to the exclusion of instinctual-intuitive collective awareness is I believe flawed. In fact, "self consciousness" as popularly conceived may be a interim stage in what we term "evolution" where the rejoining, if you will, of an integrated or embodied self-conscious instinctual awareness that makes no distinction between instinct and extrapolation but rather achieves, using our current language terms, a new transformative synthesis (outside the realm of current conceptualization but reflections or intimations within the present vocabulary of conceptualization) is possible. Sri. Aurobindo's Supramental consciousness comes to mind here (as one example).
Good point and I'm glad you brought up Sri Aurobindo! I was surprised Bernardo didn't make any space for (or was ignorant of) supra consciousness. Or something like it. I would have thought he would have been familiar with Aurobindo.
Dr Mark McIntosh has a complementary approach, to Sri Aurobindo's, in some ways from a Christian respective, with his work on Divine Ideas. Fr Alexander Men likewise, in the Wellsprings of Religion.
two of my absolute favorites!!!
little request if possible -- a number of books flashed up on screen during this -- is it possible to see a list of these?
I'm glad you found that worthwhile! If only I had time to go through them all. From memory, I know that I recommended a few by Fr. Loudovikos, one on the Trinity by Staniloae, Dr. Peter Leithart's Traces of the Trinity, and Dr Jens Zimmermann's Incarnational Humanism. Hopefully, that will keep you busy for a while anyway!
@@MoreChrist appreciated!
The loss of symbolic understanding in the Catholic Church is a huge oversimplification and generalization by Bernardo. Surprising, because from the hours of content I have listened to from him he makes a commendable effort to always be charitable. The Orthodox may have done a better job of keeping symbolism alive but it is not totally lost. The reform of Vatican II may actually be understood as the eucatastrophe that will lead to a rediscovery within Catholicism. And it has in many ways, unfortunately these type of thinkers are not the mainstream.
I agree. Dr David Fagerberg has done wonderful work on this, especially his book: Consecrating the World.
@@MoreChrist Had not heard of that particular work, though I have heard Dr. Fagerberg in passing. Thanks for the recommendation! Michael Martin was my intro into this milieu from a Catholic standpoint. He has been the biggest blessing in leading me to other authors that I may not have heard of otherwise (a big example is Tomberg and his Meditations on the Tarot. Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas to you, as well! Michael's great - academically and personally. I'd also recommend the Anglo-Catholic, Reverend David Brown and a small c Catholic friend, Dr Jens Zimmermann. These gifts definitely exist in 'western' Christianity.
Post nominal is huge here.
Bernardo is participating in a performative contradiction.
JV always says post nominal...for this issue I think
❤️🌅
The true paradox is not true: statements don't exist in the vacuum. By positing that statement you are already giving epistemological primacy to the statement, and as a result ontological primacy, instead of giving it to the action of positing the statement in the first place and trying to play circularly with pure logic. It is gnostic.
In plain English: if statements don't exist by themselves, the act of saying "this statement is false" is in itself a false statement because it contradicts itself performatively: Who says that the truth of a statement is self-contained? It is still a person saying paradoxes exist presupposing the truth of a statement can be found within the statement. That is a lie that denies the incarnation. Statements cannot refer to themselves as statements because their whole meaning is derived from relationship to something outside themselves, which would make this statement completely absurd (and proud) for trying to avoid the sacredness of language.
Well said, Ivan. Thank you. I've been reading a great book by Dr Jens Zimmermann on issues like this. I wish he was involved in conversations like this more often.
@@MoreChrist You're welcome, thanks for arranging all of these talks. If you're interested in epistemology I would recommend you look at presuppositionalism and to take a look at Fr Dc Dr Ananias' work on this field: ruclips.net/video/7WQ54Xe_vHQ/видео.html . It's truly a one-way trip.
It seems that consciousness is not enough ro create free-will. Where does free-will come from?
Let’s bring the comments section to Discord! I’m brand new to your channel and sayAmen to the idea we need “More Christ”. Jonathan’s “Muh Symbolism” channel is an application process. Do you have your own? I call mine “DOOR-Z.” Let’s connect, Brothers!
Kastrup wants to tap into the monad to control his own thoughts and avoid error. But that's impossible mate. What you can do is take the chaos of history and collective spiritual phenomena, see the collective patterns as spirits related to other spirits, and stop trying to define the spirits, because by definition the spirits of God tend towards unity, but the spirits of the devil make monstruous hybrids. So no, there's no classification of your thoughts into a solid camp just as you cannot think your way towards the truth, but experience the revelation of truth.
Hi is Kastrup Christian? Orthodox? Anyone know?
He's not, unfortunately.
I suggest St Francis had it right
Terence Deacons Incomplete Nature beautifully and mesmerisingly walks us through consciousness as a product of absence. How matter can give rise to consciousness that is an emergent phenomena as bi product. It could be applied here I believe, as a speculative bridge. The absent component of consciousness is what causes such struggle and the need to find an agent or homunculi or location of its presence. It is a rigorous master work and thrilling read from start to finish. Coupled to Ian McGilchrists Master and his Emissary, a study of left and right hemisphere functioning through historical time...they dovetail together for a tantalising study.
Bernardo stressed that these conscious agencies must be spoken of as being only metaphors, and that it is dangerous to assume they are literally OUT THERE. But then later on in the video, once he had set the terms of his One Mind reality he spoke quite freely of such beings as literally being real, and didn't seem to be speaking metaphorically at all. One gets the feeling that all the stress about literal and metaphorical meaning is really dependent on the premise you begin with.
Good point, definitely premise matters, but I think there's a valid distinction there. Jonathan was arguing by analogy that similar patterns as ourselves exist at different scales in our universe, and thus it makes sense to posit agency and consciousness at those scales. Bernardo's argument is coming more from the idea that we witness only a small subsection of reality due to evolutio, and thus statistically it's unlikely that life as we know it would be the only "individually conscious" agentic stuff out there, but that said stuff would not necessarily have any particular relation to man (so likely unimaginable different from us, rather than being similar but just scaled up/down). I'm reaching here a bit though :D
If you have no absolute basis for good or bad then nothing is bad or good. If you say God is bad for allowing evil into the world what are you assuming? That there is an absolute standard by which you can judge God, but where are you getting that absolute standard from? "GOD" so you are affirming an absolute standard of morality that you cannot get from your self. And you say without God we have more of a responsibility for morality since it's up to us ultimately and there is no absolute standard outside of ourselves so we have the responsibility of creating a morality, but on what basis do you choose one created morality over the other as superior? From a evolutionary perspective very horrible morality can increase survival and can prove much more useful from a technical standpoint than loving each other in the way we think of it, also who decides what is love in this world without God? What if eating your neighbor is how you express your love and that's how we perceive it, there are societies before, that have acted in this way. By what standard do you choose one supposed good or bad over the other? and what if another society or person contradicts your view? Ultimately you fall into meaningless all over again, The truth is you are using God's morality to complain about God's morality but if you get rid of God you have no basis to complain about God's morality demonstrating your belief in Gods ultimate standards of truth because you are an image of him, yet you suppress his existence God is the standard of Good because that's who and what he is. Good is not good because God wills it, and God doesn't will things because they are good, because again good cannot be good separate from him... rather "God is Good" and is the very standard of Good itself he is the ultimate reference point, you cannot know up from down without a reference point, the same applies to morality, if you add another "O" to God you get the word Good for a reason because he is the very reference point of every single judgement of good and we all believe this but suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Even atheists affirm this by their very reasoning faculties it is inevitable.
Amen to that.
You guys need Cornelio Fabro in your life, Saint Thomas Aquinas already fixed all these conflicts you guys are having here, and Father Cornelio Fabro explains it perfectly, Kastrup is an essentialist, he is not talking about being on the fundamental level, english is a weak language to speak about these things since the language doesnt have a word for "ens (in Latin) ente (in Spanish)" and you can't make proper linguistic distinctions between ens and esse or actus essendi (in Saint Thomas Aquinas Language). If Kastrup could understand being at the fundamental level he could see why you can make analogies, if he understood the notion of the being of things (the essence of things) as participation on being himself through the act of being (actus essendi / divine energies) then he wouldn't make all these separations he is making, you can make distinctions by means of levels of participation and relations with being himself, with God basically, everything that has being has it by participation in God, and all things participate in God at different level, the essence of something is potency (divine energy/ power / limitation) in relation to God (in the end it's the power of God himself, it's by his power, wisdom and love that he can limit himself at different levels to create the universe). The notion of being in Kastrup is limited to essences and accidents, that's why he talks about "concepts and names" as simply nominal realities or as mental abstract realities. Saint Thomas Aquinas was able to put together Revelation plus the fathers of the Church with the platonists and neo platonists plus Aristotle to explain the metaphysics of being and the way everything relates to him (God).
Amen! Great comment. Thank you.
@@MoreChrist Sure, I wish more people could see the importance of the distinction between essence and the act of being that is present in Saint Thomas Aquinas and his notion of participation, the eastern churches talk about the essence energies distinction which is pretty much the same, since at the core of the doctrine is the fact that the end goal is union in God by voluntary participation in him through his act of being (esse / actus essendi) or divine energies...
And well on the main topic, angels are spiritual beings, which means that they are "simple" inmaterial beings, simple like mathematical axioms are simple with multiple substantial and accidental implications in the corporeal world, yet there is a difference because these spiritual beings are not single "axioms" or patterns (patron, meaning a model to be replicated, or a "boss" that rules over another aspect of reality) they are the "hypostatic" union of certain axioms (potencies) and the capacity to reason the axioms in the person of the angel, an axiom is not a person, it's not an incorporeal substance of rational nature like an Angel.
Axioms are basically limitations of Being, are "potencies", potential is basically a limitation of being that can be actualized thus in a limited manner, which is what axioms pretty much are in the mathematical sense (not in every sense), yet an axiom doesn't produce an organized country, ergo an axiom can't explain a country, an axiom doesn't produce a functioning living body, an axiom can't organize by itself another being in a rational manner, yet a rational being can apply axioms in a specific manner to get certain outcomes, and that's what angels and humans do with axioms, they can organize them in a specific manner to generate specific results and this is due to the rational nature of persons (incorporeal and corporeal) the softwares Kastrup talked about on the video were not created by axioms but by persons who were able to implement those axioms in a specific rational manner, just like that the axioms that created China were organized by a rational being, and that rational being is ultimately God himself yet God can limit himself to create distinct persons that can rule over specific aspects of reality like the angel of China.
@@MoreChrist Sorry for the long text I wish I could simply speak to you about this haha
@@AprendeMovimiento no need to say sorry. I think these are the most helpful and productive comments on the video. Thank you for sharing. This would all be fun to speak about. Maybe in the new year?
@@MoreChrist That would be awesome! thanks! much Love and may God Bless you
I made a clip from another video that gets at what Dr. Kastrup seems to be trying to say to Mr. Pageau about the conceptual framework surrounding words and their referents. Would love to hear Pageau bring in Derrida or possibly Aristotle or Saussure here.
ruclips.net/user/clipUgkxel6tB6lrQO64OkwnfnNqDtHHpPrjY4Y1
As far as I can tell, kastrup has never engaged the arguments for classical theism. Can anyone point me to any places where he has?
He does in his book More Than Allegory. It’s an excellent case for Christianity.
@@sweigman6508having not read the book yet, what about it supports Christian theology?
When talking about God having meta-consciousness, Bernardo believes that only human beings have it, because it "seems to have evolved at great cost, over eons of time of evolution in response to a challenging environment." .... "The Divine mind", he says "did not have to put up with the challenges of a local ecosystem." Hence, for Bernardo, metacognition was not there in the beginning, and is not an attribute of God, but only evolved to meet the challenges of earthly, mortal life.
And yet, just ten minutes before, he talks about how the genetic mutation that happened to allow for metacognition "happened and was fixed in the human genome _thousands_ of years before it was of _any use to us_!" He goes as far as to admit that "this contradicts evolution, in a certain way".
If Bernardo believes the latter, why does he argue the former?
There is only God.