Part 2 please and focus on metaphors in religious symbolism! Akin to “more than allegory” and Rupert’s understanding of metaphor! Rupert actually talks about metafives! Haha ❤
Awesome!! One of the very best conversations on spirituality, science and consciousness I've ever heard (and I watch a lot of these RUclips videos!) 🙏🏻
A wonderful, thought provoking discussion with two of my favourite thinkers that really stretched my little bird brain. It would be a real treat to listen to Bernardo talking to David Bentley Hart, with whom Rupert had a discussion that was also very interesting.
Subscribing! Glad I found this channel, jonas. Thank you! Same as you, I'm surprised these guys really haven't been in conversation before? For that matter, it would be awesome to see a conversation involving them and Keith ward. He's another religious anti-physicalist, like dr sheldrake. And he's got excellent, excellent ways of explaining things.
The end remarks were particularly enlightening. Unlike Kastrup I am not a Naturalist. I believe Nature emerged from the Mind of the Transcendent which was recognised by ancient religions but distorted by primitive notions and fables. In this sense the most useful contribution of Kastrup is poojting out that Nature is essentially mental while Sheldrake's key contribution is to point out that the best explanation is that the Cosmos emerged from snd evolves from the Transcrndent Mind which alone gives the universe a teleology. That is certainly the most satisfying existential explanation for us human beings. Kastrup's metacognitive reflection of the universe upon itself through beings like us is ultimately sterile of purpose and meaning and therefofe if xorrect, offers no solution to our needs at all. From our point of view as feeling, reflecting beings who hope to continue our journey beyond the fleeting lifespan granted us by biology, let us hope that Sheldrake is right and not Kastrup's vision of the world as cosmic split personality on an incomceivable scale to no particular end whatsoever. A strpng indication of hope for me is the massive corpus of NDEs now exhaustively studied by enquiring scientists and philosophers. The overall weight is in fsvour of NDEs being real and not hsllucinatory. Rhis includes many atheists who had to chsnge their minds about the Afterlife,perhsps the most famous being A J Ayer in 1986.
But would not plasma stepping down into an electrical field be a form of conscious interaction? This is a wonderful conversation! I think this is a broad stroke, but it is a form of consciousness, intelligent at its core.
I love both of these thinkers and this was a great conversation. Bernardo's view of idealism is interesting in that he continues to think that everything is mind but completely determined, and so no escape from billiard balls, even for mind at large. To me it seems that referencing the deterministic framework of materialism or physicalism in a universe where everything is of and in consciousness is an odd extrapolation. If all is mind then the nature of mind should be the framework for all of its thoughts, activities and creativity, but where do we have any indication that mind is wholly determined? Only in the reductive materialist framework do we have this idea. If we begin with the idea that all is in and of consciousness then we enter the world of meaning and intent, and then comes the question of free will. Bernardo is a determinist who sees some independence at the level of dissociated beings with meta consciousness, but still no departure from a strictly billiard ball universe. But what could possibly determine mind at large if mind at large determines all else?
If time and space don't exist, the question of determinism means little to nothing if all eventualities eventually occur then you would experience every decision and outcome in your trek through infinity regardless.
@@frankp.3197There are always more ways of looking at things. If time does not exist as anything more than a noticing or measuring of change, and if change is the result of motion, then we may have a different way of analyzing the nature of causality. That in turn could lead to a different dynamic for determinism and free will.
@@morphixnm I mean the simple fact we exist period means we had to have been in the soup since infinity. I think most would agree everything didn't start from nothing. Even if you remove time and space you would still be left with infinity. Infinity is enough to live every decision and outcome from this life, and every other life and all it's forms and then some. I would define free will as the ability to choose. Unless I can be convinced of an actual beginning to everything, then free will or determinism doesn't mean anything in infinity.
Unresolved by Bernardo is the issue of why or how form (or morphic fields) is maintained. Is the reason something like a given, such as inertia? Although that seems incorrect, since morphic fields can be modified, hence evolution, a *_mental_* process.
This talk is more than a year old...maybe more, correct? Please mention the date of the talk in the description so viewers know when it happened, thank you.
The talk is not not a year old. The original video version was published on Rupert's channel January 5th 2024 (link in the description). The talk was recorded a few weeks before. The video's of the Re-visioning Religion podcast series were first uploaded to RUclips in February 2024, but from now on they will be published when ready (which is always a couple of weeks after recording).
For those interested, Jonas published an addendum to the conversation, where he offers some of his own views on the topics discussed in the conversation and adds an extra layer of nuance by revisiting an old philosophical debate on the non-dual nature of reality and the relationship between sat, chit and ananda. You can read it here: medium.com/re-visioning-religion/what-if-beauty-is-the-meaning-of-life-29beaf553021
I do believe that some force like God exists out there, however I do not believe that it is omnipotent. I think whatever that “God” is , it is constrained by its own creation. I see God as something like a canvas that paints itself. In order to experience the canvas and the creation that has unfolded , that “God” would have to step outside the canvas, which would by definition erase that canvas. Thus, in order to exist , “God” has to exists within a contradiction of sorts where it is constrained by the universal laws which have emerged FROM its creation. I believe that human beings evolved the intelligence that we have evolved into because God wishes to experience his creation and the only way to do that is by “lending a hand” to the formation of a mind capable of consciousness and subjective experience , yet also be a highly functional automaton.
These two NEED to talk again. Thank you!
That, was beautiful! And superbly moderated! Absolutely wonderful! Thank you !!!
❤ thank you so much for this beautiful conversation. It was an absolute delight.
A dream conversation beautifully moderated. ✨️
Thank you so much.
Part 2 please and focus on metaphors in religious symbolism! Akin to “more than allegory” and Rupert’s understanding of metaphor! Rupert actually talks about metafives! Haha ❤
Awesome!! One of the very best conversations on spirituality, science and consciousness I've ever heard (and I watch a lot of these RUclips videos!) 🙏🏻
A wonderful, thought provoking discussion with two of my favourite thinkers that really stretched my little bird brain.
It would be a real treat to listen to Bernardo talking to David Bentley Hart, with whom Rupert had a discussion that was also very interesting.
I love Bernardo Kastrup…
His explanations of idealism give me a greater appreciation of the Adwaitha Vedanta philosophy that I feel is the truth.
two of my very favourite philosophers. Wonderful talk. Thank you all.
Awe, thank all of you. I have something to ponder on. ❤
Outstanding and insightful discussion . Thank you
Subscribing! Glad I found this channel, jonas. Thank you! Same as you, I'm surprised these guys really haven't been in conversation before? For that matter, it would be awesome to see a conversation involving them and Keith ward. He's another religious anti-physicalist, like dr sheldrake. And he's got excellent, excellent ways of explaining things.
Keep up the good work. This will change the world if people listen.
❤
The end remarks were particularly enlightening. Unlike Kastrup I am not a Naturalist. I believe Nature emerged from the Mind of the Transcendent which was recognised by ancient religions but distorted by primitive notions and fables. In this sense the most useful contribution of Kastrup is poojting out that Nature is essentially mental while Sheldrake's key contribution is to point out that the best explanation is that the Cosmos emerged from snd evolves from the Transcrndent Mind which alone gives the universe a teleology. That is certainly the most satisfying existential explanation for us human beings. Kastrup's metacognitive reflection of the universe upon itself through beings like us is ultimately sterile of purpose and meaning and therefofe if xorrect, offers no solution to our needs at all. From our point of view as feeling, reflecting beings who hope to continue our journey beyond the fleeting lifespan granted us by biology, let us hope that Sheldrake is right and not Kastrup's vision of the world as cosmic split personality on an incomceivable scale to no particular end whatsoever.
A strpng indication of hope for me is the massive corpus of NDEs now exhaustively studied by enquiring scientists and philosophers. The overall weight is in fsvour of NDEs being real and not hsllucinatory. Rhis includes many atheists who had to chsnge their minds about the Afterlife,perhsps the most famous being A J Ayer in 1986.
Awesome 👌
But would not plasma stepping down into an electrical field be a form of conscious interaction? This is a wonderful conversation! I think this is a broad stroke, but it is a form of consciousness, intelligent at its core.
I love both of these thinkers and this was a great conversation. Bernardo's view of idealism is interesting in that he continues to think that everything is mind but completely determined, and so no escape from billiard balls, even for mind at large. To me it seems that referencing the deterministic framework of materialism or physicalism in a universe where everything is of and in consciousness is an odd extrapolation.
If all is mind then the nature of mind should be the framework for all of its thoughts, activities and creativity, but where do we have any indication that mind is wholly determined? Only in the reductive materialist framework do we have this idea.
If we begin with the idea that all is in and of consciousness then we enter the world of meaning and intent, and then comes the question of free will. Bernardo is a determinist who sees some independence at the level of dissociated beings with meta consciousness, but still no departure from a strictly billiard ball universe. But what could possibly determine mind at large if mind at large determines all else?
If time and space don't exist, the question of determinism means little to nothing if all eventualities eventually occur then you would experience every decision and outcome in your trek through infinity regardless.
@@frankp.3197There are always more ways of looking at things. If time does not exist as anything more than a noticing or measuring of change, and if change is the result of motion, then we may have a different way of analyzing the nature of causality. That in turn could lead to a different dynamic for determinism and free will.
@@morphixnm I mean the simple fact we exist period means we had to have been in the soup since infinity. I think most would agree everything didn't start from nothing. Even if you remove time and space you would still be left with infinity.
Infinity is enough to live every decision and outcome from this life, and every other life and all it's forms and then some.
I would define free will as the ability to choose. Unless I can be convinced of an actual beginning to everything, then free will or determinism doesn't mean anything in infinity.
@@frankp.3197 your argument from infinity is a good one!
Where can I find the video?
As it says in the description, the video version can be found here: ruclips.net/video/Wi1U7Cw4XV0/видео.html
@@revisioningreligion thank you mister. I should learn how to read more carefully. 😀
Unresolved by Bernardo is the issue of why or how form (or morphic fields) is maintained. Is the reason something like a given, such as inertia? Although that seems incorrect, since morphic fields can be modified, hence evolution, a *_mental_* process.
This talk is more than a year old...maybe more, correct? Please mention the date of the talk in the description so viewers know when it happened, thank you.
The talk is not not a year old. The original video version was published on Rupert's channel January 5th 2024 (link in the description). The talk was recorded a few weeks before. The video's of the Re-visioning Religion podcast series were first uploaded to RUclips in February 2024, but from now on they will be published when ready (which is always a couple of weeks after recording).
Wonderful!
This exact same conversation appears elsewhere on another channel
This is indeed the audio podcast version. The video version was uploaded on Rupert Sheldrake's channel.
For those interested, Jonas published an addendum to the conversation, where he offers some of his own views on the topics discussed in the conversation and adds an extra layer of nuance by revisiting an old philosophical debate on the non-dual nature of reality and the relationship between sat, chit and ananda. You can read it here: medium.com/re-visioning-religion/what-if-beauty-is-the-meaning-of-life-29beaf553021
I do believe that some force like God exists out there, however I do not believe that it is omnipotent. I think whatever that “God” is , it is constrained by its own creation. I see God as something like a canvas that paints itself. In order to experience the canvas and the creation that has unfolded , that “God” would have to step outside the canvas, which would by definition erase that canvas. Thus, in order to exist , “God” has to exists within a contradiction of sorts where it is constrained by the universal laws which have emerged FROM its creation. I believe that human beings evolved the intelligence that we have evolved into because God wishes to experience his creation and the only way to do that is by “lending a hand” to the formation of a mind capable of consciousness and subjective experience , yet also be a highly functional automaton.
Super dank u
Thomas Carol Gonzalez Kevin Walker Edward
Hmm.