To everyone posting saying basically how he is speaking mumbo-jumbo and going no where with it, you weren't listening. OR you're holding onto your beliefs desperately. He has said he is an entertainer, put there to make you think. He makes me think. If I ever speak and I get to at least one person then I would consider that a success and this man has gotten to many people. Sounds like you all may be the fanatics he describes 😮💨
When someone looks at you, and you can tell that they are judging you, and internally critiquing everything that they know about you, such a look can be extremely uncomfortable and unpleasant. The gaze of an all loving god, however, looking at you and seeing everything that you are and have done would make you feel incredibly seen, and you would know that it had forgiven you already because it is a loving god and you would be able to tell that it loved you more than anything, regardless of whatever terrible things you may or may not have done, and I imagine the feeling you would have would be one of adoration and extreme gratitude, not the normal sort of discomfort you feel when a person watches you .
Alan basically is saying throw away everything You have ever been taught. Think for Yourself. Do not expect to ever find the truth. The TRUTH is tapping You on your shoulder!!!
I reckon he knew himself that much of what he told was unfounded and kinda random and he just enjoyed playing around with mystic concepts freely and sounding trenchant and profound and impressing his listeners for fun in the process. If I remember correctly, in one talk he even admitted it himself. Nevertheless I liked his take on ideas and definitions of God being a particularly deceptive kind of idols. But if God is everything that exists for us, why on earth invoke some fantasy entity and not just call it "our reality" 😂 it just appears so absurdly obsessive. Now he says all our ideas of how God relates to us and to life and love are wrong by definition, and then what? So God is nothing in particular? An utterly useless empty concept? His take on faith, to dissect it, consists of two imo unrelated concepts. One is the "Leap of faith" which for science equals to the axioms, the other is synonymous with the psychological concept of "basic trust" (german "Urvertrauen") which is well understood and it's something you can lose or acquire, and you can't make any valid judgement about people who have no Urvertrauen doing something wrong or worse. If you have no Urvertrauen it's a circumstantial tragedy and also a highly functional adaptaion to a dangerous environment. Because that's what eventually drives our soul, but the natural conation to become an adroit being in our environment. So the question as to in what way the/our Cosmos does relate to us remains unanswered. At least regarding our relationahip with our biosphere I claim today we have sufficient data to confidently assert that it doesn't only not care about our well-being, but even lavishly uses our capability of feeling for its own utterly absurd and mindless goals like exothermic chemical reactions, forming a hypercomplex crystalline ecosystem of stupid chemical catalysts as resistance or opposite principle to the sun's rays banging against this chunk of liquid stone and iron we're sitting on. Have you ever considered just how much insane suffering and torture our ancestors and died-out lineages were forced to experience in order to produce us with all our miraculous adaptations? We're all literally products of - amongst some enjoyable experiences - of millions of years of gratuitous, unfathomable pain, torture, horror and blood of innocent children. So screw our biosphere in particular. No remorse. Now ofc., today at least a fraction of our population can go through life with faith in our environment, our instincts, intuition, scientific insights, feeling preserved and thrive by dolce vita, it can be quite pleasant. But was it really worth millions of generations of ferocious, despicable, indifferent cruelty? Imho the biosphere/nature is not our friend. It's our slaver, jailer and abuser towards whom we've developed severe Stockholm Syndrome. To quote Žižek: "Don't be mistaken. If Nature is a mother, she's a dirty bitch." In conclusion, if you think about it, the only remaining big unknown variable for determining our real, genuine relationship to and role in the Cosmos is the relation between the known laws of physics and our qualia, our feelings and sensations. As long as this basic relation remains unestablished, it could be just anything, really, and the brightest heads on Earth stand divided to the core. If we could crack just this single case, we would finally be able to commence constructing our own genuine, sophisticated and emancipated metaphysical identity. And me, at long last, I could find peace amongst my struggles for good.
Nice deepity. What's a deepity? A deepity is statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another. Generally, a deepity has (at least) two meanings: one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be "earth-shattering" if true. To the extent that it's true, it doesn't have to matter. To the extent that it has to matter, it isn't true (if it actually means anything). This second meaning has also been called "pseudo-profound bull$h!t."
