Another anthropocentric fantasist who essentially says "It's all so wonderful so god did it". Utter rubbish. And as usual for the type, he's surrounded by the gullible.
What a great channel!! I am so happy I stumbled unto this channel. And only 28 views so far for this great conversation! LOL. I found a gem in the ground !!!
Glad to hear you liked it! And the channel has only very recently become more active on RU-vid, so hopefully comments like yours will help it grow. Thanks for the support!
The proof of Anselm of Canterbury. One of the most discussed ontological proofs of God's existence in history. For centuries it has had many philosophical supporters as well as critics. But it remains an interesting piece of logic whatever stance you eventually take. A good explanation on it can be found here: www.thecollector.com/anselm-of-canterbury-proof-god-existance/
That dashboard analogy made things so simple. And dissociation concept is also helpful in making sense o what's going on. Service to transpersonal is a modern way of saying service to God.
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 RU-vid in February 2024, but from now on they will be published when ready (which is always a couple of weeks after recording).
This man talks about everything but nothing his words are not focused on anything he just says physical world is like a dashboard . he can not go any more detailed than that
Fascinating discussion! I love Kastrup and watch everything I can find on Idealism. But, he generally shies away from implications to spirituality. I’ve been hoping for a discussion like this for a long time! Thank you.
My favorite philosopher. All is consciousness but maybe it is better that only a few understand this. If all understood it there would be no need for science. So that we may evolve physically the blindness of material science is necessary. Material science does bring benefits. In our dual system science cannot bring all good. It brings both boons and banes as it is operating within duality. At some point at the end of evolution all will understand that all is consciousness or mind.
Until you keep symbolising Good skills as gifts ,you will never have any good skill... There is nothing such as Gift by birth , it's their conditioning which can be developed by anyone
Bill W. had the same message about our lives not being about us. Unfortunately, some people are turned off by the religious language. Fortunately, there are secular meetings but I don’t know if the message about “powerlessness “ is as meaningful.
The problem of reducing substance to processes is that they lack self-unity. This is the same issue the materialist has: how to maintain unity of consciousness(formal unity) through diverse processes(material divrsity). This would imply necessarily a grounding substance of a different sort. This needs not be dualism for you are not positing two substances, the material can still be an activity of the same substance, and self-substances can still be disassociated, but the underlying substance would be just consciousness. Yet that would maintain a distinction although not separation(not multiple substances but multiple modes and self-relating of a singular substance). The dualism Bernardo points to, seems a very naive sort of dualism. One can maintain diversity without appealing to such radical ontological separation. As long as there's no ontological separation there is no need to maintain dualism, and the diversity can be explained through modes of the underlying substance that gives rise to multiple forms.
Brilliant and enlightening podcast. References made to Advaita vedanta and the nirguna brahman - attribute less immeasurable is argued beautifully....as transpersonal nature. Sarvam kalvidham Brahman - all this infeed is Brahman says Upanishads. jiddu Krishnamurti talked about how the observer is observed experiencer is the experienced etc & pointed to a different way of seeing the other side snd connecting with the one - God
Both Rupert and Bernardo are great thinkers but their posits are just that, speculation. Christianity if it holds on to the divinity of scripture is a dead duck. Idealism if it means everything is mental must also be a likely dead duck. Yes we understand at a fundamental level matter comes from non matter (consciousness) but once it becomes matter it is in another realm of experience, a physical one . And for life its conscious experience is a temporary one. Remember the duck test is a form of abductive reasoning, usually expressed as "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". The issue with Bernardo is, is he confusing a different dimension with idealism? I am not convinced on this matter so I personally interpret both Bernardo's and Federico Faggin's idealistic explanations as fine but they are just substituting the idealistic explanation of the physical world for another dimension. Maybe consciousness could be fundamental but evolution of consciousness into a holistic, coherent form may be a better platform of explanation. God bless to both all the same
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
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 ❤
It would be quite an experience (and in-perience) to see you and Ra Un Nefer Amen ( author of the Metu Neter voluminous works) reasoning together one day.
The problem of violence is human nature and power. But I'm surprised that there was no mention of capitalism! Nonetheless a great talk. Thank you both.
Excellent discussion, productive of some profound insights. I should like to suggest the second of my three books on Marx, Marxism and mythos. Leonard Wessell, Prometheus Bound. The Mythic Structure of Karl Marx's Scientific Thinking (Louisiana State University Press: 1984). Although I focus on Marx, the underlying context is concerned with the nature of mythos, logos and, shall I say, secular religion. After 60 pages of discussion of mythos, I settle on Aristotles' definition in this Poetics, which amounts to the principle of dramatic organization; then I show how it can be combined with rational logos, then I develop how Marx's rationalism (logos) developed out of the romantic mythos of his youthful poetry leading to the discovery of the proletariat as the only class that can say: "I am nothing and I should be everything." This is a highly dramatic, mythic thesis that underlies the ontology of all of Marx's economic categories.That which connects them all is "mythic/dramatic" structure of oneness--fall into antagonistic pluralities --redemption into a higher collective oneness-This "story" is historically quite old. It was not only adopted by Marx, but by leftism per se (cf. la gauche of the Fr. Revolution) up to today' works-ism and, I am sure, tomorrow' whatever tale of fall and redemption. Such a structure is neither reigous nor secular, rather human. Thanks for the fine discussion, Prof. L. Wessell (ret.) Bonn, Germany
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 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.
I have listened to many of Bernardo's interviews, but for me this is getting very close to one of the best. Thanks so much for sharing. I can't believe there is only 112 subscribers on this channel, assume it's not being going for long. A great set of questions because it distills so much in a relatively short timeline. I especially like the Jungian content (I confess I am a big Jung fan), and the punchy definition of the Individuation process Bernardo provides. Im going to listen to this again.
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.
Thanks bernardo for guiding the way with this beacon of light of mind. Yes be not of the world -but trans formed by the renewal of mind- thanks for helping us
I love the way Jonas asks informed, in-depth questions that even those of us who have been reading and following Bernardo may also have. Jonas mentioned something about a proof of God at timestamp 31:33, but I can't understand what he is saying. Does anyone know what his statement is? (The transcript recorded it as "the proof of falmo".)
