Ian McGilchrist has become my favorite living philosopher along with Ken Wilber. Scientific Materialism is collapsing and thank God for that! I just pray it doesn't take the whole world with it on its way to ruin.
This is great! Jonathan helped me see that the focus on our experience (phenomenology) is actually even more embodied, more incarnate, than referring to left and right hemispheres. As useful as those metaphors and analogies are. It's also about how we experience the world. First person. Even very earthy, bodily metaphors can prove to be quite abstract if we over rely on them. In some ways, I think Jonathan's symbolic language helpfully fulfills what McGilchrist describes with his academic work on neuroscience and so on. Taking it back to liturgy is most fruitful.
Yes - cognition is as much about the body as it is the brain. Everything comes back to incarnation and the scientists are slowing finding their way back to the Johannine prologue.
The Master and his Emissary is one of my all time life-changing favorite books and I love Jonathan's work, especially his insights into mysticism which I found through Jordan Peterson- (whom was a gateway for me to Christianity 5 years ago, having grownup in a secular intellectual household.) I recently watched on RU-vid Ken Wilbur about his Integral Theory and how we (humanity) are backsliding in the "culture wars" and it occurred to me while watching this that I can't help but think that the Right brain ability to "see with eyes to see" (Jesus), non-dual thinking which I've picked up from Fr. Richard Rohr, Ken Wilbur's integral theory, and Simone Weil's mystical brilliance, whom Iain mentioned towards the end (and whom I adore immensely)-- it's all talking about the same thing. We all know where we need to be going but have different language (or "metaphors", that are so important) and that what exactly we are "paying attention to" gives the nuance of the direction to head in. Like Jonathan I lean towards art (poetic art, narrative, and also music) to see Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. But philosophy, physics, psychology, theology, and social discourse are all legitimate modes or guides, as well. All this is to say: I had a brilliantly stimulating hour listening to this and it gives me hope for humanity! Thank you both, kind gentlemen!!
I'm a huge admirer or Wilber - but worth mentioning that the single aspect of Integral he was emphasising in that Rebel Wisdom conversation with David Fuller was Spiral Dynamics.....as developed by Dr Graves, Don Beck and Chris Cowan. Wilber adjusted the colour sequence slightly. I continue to hope there is indeed a Second Tier (Spiral Dynamics) space where humans of good will and open mind can meet, beyond the culture war. Meanwhile, I am deeply grateful for the work of Iain McGilchrist.
@@matthewsmi2239 I hope people who see the world through a 2nd tier lens can find places to come together and meet as well. I imagine that right now the internet is probably the best bet for most people, but it would be very helpful if some actual physical institutions could open up.
Jonathon pls try to get a convo with Bruno Latour.. many ppl dont know that he considers himself a faithful Catholic.. I think his philosophy offers many fruitful resources for the convos going on in this corner of the internet..
Bruno Latour is far too postmodern for Jonathon Pageau. I totally agree with you though. I would include Brian Massumi, Timothy Morton, Bayo Akomolafe too, but that will never happen.
The idea that consciousness and matter are two different states of the same substance resonates with me. I don't like this notion of "dead" matter and "living" matter. I prefer to think of it as conscious or unconscious matter. A cat is conscious but cat food is unconscious. When the cat eats the cat food, the unconscious food is integrated into the conscious body of the cat and "awakens," becoming conscious. Similarly the previously conscious matter in the cat that sheds away goes to sleep and becomes unconscious, lying dormant until the circumstance where it awakens occurs once more.
Wow, I like the way you said that unconscious matter becomes conscious when it's absorbed by a conscious being (and that becomes dormant/unconscious when the being excretes it).
@@forscherr2 Thank you! But the implication I want to point to with my framing is that you dream when you're unconscious, meaning that I'm implying that unconscious matter "dreams" in some way. And that's usually where I lose people 😅
I'd like to hear Iain on St Gregory Palamas and the Essence-Energies distinction. It strikes me as the perfect balance and coming together of opposites that he apparently longs for.
I view Macgilchrist as one of the foundational figures which set me on the path I am now in terms of working to see the world in a more complete (less one-sided, or hemispheric) way. Thank you, sir, for sharing your thoughtful and engaging conversation with him. I sincerely appreciate your perspective.
The 21 min. mark, I completely understand what Jonathan is saying regarding beauty as not reduced to show, it's even deeper than that. "She" or the right is the call to participation, it's very distant and a stretch to experience this. It is strange to feel but "she" never desires to be showcased, only to uplift others and her magnificence doesn't require a stage.
I was honestly writing about these same topics about attention and getting to the same conclusions regarding the solutions. I agree completely: The problem would be getting through to people who take attention for granted, who take their worldview for granted. It's already in the Bible, "He who has ears..." These are the true dark ages. I don't take the Gnostic position that truth is developing itself. You may want to see it be progressively instantiated, embodied more and more. But progress is such a damned snake that we'll never make it if we keep thinking Gnosticism or liberalism are our friends. They are our misguided brethren.
Which of our siblings is correctly guided? I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but I am curious about where you think we SHOULD be looking for guide stars (other than ourselves and those we cannot help but love (and those who cannot help but love us).
@@thelawfus Christ, the Orthodox Church, non-duality (as opposed to monism and dualism). It is God who discloses reality to us when we clear our nous (mind) from distraction.
Surfing has a lot to offer the quest for engagement. It is actually a really good metaphor for the fluid foundation of consciousness, as I describe in my philosophy of Surfism.
A concept from music therapy that you mention around participating in art (particularly music) is the concept of 'musiking' (Christopher Small 1998(ish)) and more on the specific music therapy context 'health musiking' (Brynulf Stige 2002(ish)) (apologies I'm trying to remember the references from the top of my head so dates may be wrong)! I wrote an (unpublished/partially finished) paper on this and the concept of the iso-principle (how music therapists synchronize with their clients) that may be of interest! From an enthralled music therapist/cognitive scientist! I love what the both of you do! 🔥🔥🔥👍
The analogy articulated by Iain in regard to water and the states of matter as related to consciousness as an ontological primary is excellent! Great interview, Jonathan, enjoyed it. God bless.
Loved that you guys conversed, but my one point of (constructive) criticism is this: I believe your philosophy of art is quite different, it would have been interesting for you guys to really nail down your differences in regards to art. [For example, I believe your view points on the Renaissance are opposed.]
It’s too hard to follow you two lol. So insightful I keep going in constant tangents I have to rewind frequently to follow! Amazing exchange. Thank you both Senseis🙌🏾
McGilChrist is quite something else; never seen anything exactly like him (emphasis on exactly, -- as he of another said, by changing you/we/one remains the same
With Iain I see some Heidegger, grasping, and Blake, imagination, and am reminded of the Carlisles and Burkes who protested aspects of modern life as it was emerging. Centuries later, here we are, the protest is maintained.
What makes medieval church more participative than say, Lutheran worship? My understanding of the medieval church service is that it largely consisted of priests performing the rituals and choirs singing the mass, while the congregation simply watched, and received just the body in the Eucharist. In terms of worship practice, Luther’s reformation simply added hymns and responses, restored communion in both kinds, and allowed for the option of using the vernacular (although his first reformed mass, the Formulae Misse of 1523, was still in Latin). The latter seems to me to be more participative for the laity, or at least the participation is more active. I would agree that the further degradation of ritual in Protestant churches as time has gone on is a bad thing.
Over 40 years ago l found myself in a crisis both intellectual and spiritual. My response was to seek out a Jungian therapist; pretty spare on the ground at the time. Almost from the beginning l was confronted by a dream that stated clearly, in stark poetic imagery that l was drowning in media. Now if that was so 40 years ago it doesn't take much to envision the overwhelm today. Yes we need a collective transformation of consciousness, but how? As Jung said we don't become enlightened by imagining figures of light but by entering, what seems, to the ego, the dark unconscious.A paradox; we enter into the unconscious in order to become conscious A friend of mine who had done some of the original work on the dreaming brain, recommend this exercise; tonight before falling asleep ( good image falling asleep)ask your deepest Self what your most pressing spiritual problem is? You may have to wait a day or two for the answer however it will come and is likely to be very humbling, very. If we are not willing to do this humbling inner work then all our talk is just that talk, meantime the world goes to hell in a handcart.🐨
I would love to have and read Dr Mcgilchrist's new books. I am in Perú and it is very expensive to buy it through Amazon. I can perfectly read it in Engilsh . Is there anogher way to get it. Please do not suggest me to fly to Scottland. Not yet.❤
"Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour, while materialistic 'progress' leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil." J.R.R. Tolkien
40:05 Very interesting, there is a pretty similar story in Poland about Saint Stanislaus who was killed during the mass in 1079 because he openly criticised and excommunicated the Ruller for cruelty, acording to the hagiography King Boleslaw the Bold killed him himself, then guards cut him into pieces and gave them to wild bests but his members miraculously reintegrated while he was guarded by four eagles. Not long after that in 1138 King Boleslaw the Wrymouth divided the Kingdom among his six sons which ended with constant fraternal wars for nearly 200 years, so process of national unification of multiple conflicted duchies became identified with the story about dismembered and reintegrated body of St.Stanislaus. It was not last moment in the Polish history when state lost independence or unity, so this this myth became naturally important in Polish identity no matter how historicaly accurate it really is.
Embracing panentheism and the Dao has got my attention. A Christianity that could embrace these gives me hope, because it is my understanding that we need a reason to come together and work towards a common goal together that probably necessitates a religion.
Christianity can never be pantheism. There is only one G-d. The tao is a great philosophy to sit and gaze at your navel, drink tea all day with a side of lotus. The goal of true religion is salvation not gabbing over vain philosophy like these two guys or the taoists.
@@grey.knight Pantheism and panentheism are not the same. The first says that God is everything. The other says that God is in everything and everything is in God. In a way, they are both monotheistic. It is just deciding whether God exists outside of creation or not. Obviously, if God created everything, He is outside of it, but what did He use to create it. Panentheism basically says that the Creation is His Body and that He is also transcendent of it. At least this is my understanding and what makes sense to me. Every Thing is Sacred, because Every Thing is of God. There is nothing outside of God. God is All there Is.
Johnathan, definitely read the new book , the matter with things. You will find his parts about time and space delightful. Time as more like a spiral and movement is primary over stasis
Attention is that which allows for a different participation. So it is not something you can look at objectively and get anything out of (including understanding), it needs to impact your actions in the world, not explain your actions or the actions of others.
The problem with this kind of gnostic progressivism is that it leads to universalism. While McGilchrist might say he's a panentheist, he does not know the exact difference between his brand of panentheism with actual pantheism and true panentheism. Panentheism requires God to be present in everything, but in the precise manner where He is not every thing: there are places where He is not. It is Christ the one who allows human beings to exist, because He allows for all the places where God precisely absconds, places God destroys and forgets: God is not the murderer, but the murdered. So while God might be in the murderer as a human, He is not in the murderer as a murderer. Murder does not exist within God. So it is correct to be a panentheist, I am one too, I'm an Orthodox Christian. But there is no abstract panentheism. That's just like saying "I'm not an anarchist" when your job is to write down laws. Yes, the divine exists. The question is who is the divine? The question is... what actions and worldviews are not godly? And I don't say it to start a witch-hunt, but for one reason: Christ's death is the death of God within man as the foundation for man; death as the foundation for true love. God dies so we can be free, but free to be reunited with Him. If we don't reunite... then we die. The moment we try to integrate something that is not properly His into the divine, to mix our blood with His, we serve the devil. The devil is pantheistic, so our panentheism goes overboard whenever we do that, and we do that a lot, all of us. Yes, we need to shift our minds, to be transformed by the renewal of our minds. But the divine feminine is what says "no" to everything but God. What we need to be able to do is to gently, but firmly, say "God is not x", or rather more accurately, "you are killing God in you and in others whenever you do x, death is the only participation God has in these things". All idolatry is a confusion of creator with creation, and by saying "we're free" we deify ourselves instead of seeing our huge responsibility. Where is the rigor that complements mercy otherwise? Where is the limit to openness and "compassion"? That rigor is in God and is the basis for the identity of the Father. The so called openness... Not so much.
I don't see this problem with universalism that you speak of. I don't see the problem with stating that God is in both the murderer and the murdered either. Why cannot God be in both of these individuals? If people really feel the need to stick to Christian symbolism, then the the dark aspect of God (Lucifer) can be said to drive the murderer while the light aspect of God (Christ) can be said to comfort the murdered. And that's only IF one feels the need to speak in Christian mythological language. I don't particularly care one way or the other.
@@williamkoscielniak7871 within a Christian framework your example is not correct. Just because God created Satan it doesn't mean that Satan belongs within God, God is different from His creation, so your point basically illustrates the point I was making. In Christianity Satan is eternally destroyed by Christ and God is not equal to creation, like in pantheism and most forms of deism which include materialism. The problem with saying God is in the murderer as a murderer is that it leads to universalism and Manichean duality where God is both good and evil combined. God is only good within the Christian frame. Though God is present in the murderer, He's not present in the murderer qua murderer, because that would make God a murderer and a hypocrite. There are countless sages on these topics, I recommend you dig up some Jay Dyer on these things to see more in-depth the logical inconsistencies with all of these worldviews.
Johnathan I highly recommend you have a true conversation with a presuppositional apologist someone called Jeff Durbin I believe you have never engaged with this view before, look up Greg Bahnsen as well on RU-vid and watch his debates if you ever get the chance.
pleasantly surprised with Dr McGilchrist although not completely in line with the thinking of scripture and the fathers of the church. nonetheless an Intelligent thinker
I don't wanna be that guy. I really don't wanna be that guy. But all I could think when I first heard the good doctor was that he sounds like a British palpatine.
What about salvation? For a man who purports to follow Christ you spend more time talking about idols (icons and symbols) mammon, demons, and the world of caesar. Where in any of your videos do you preach the simplicity of salvation? You only speak proudly of vain philosophy and idolatry. "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves"
You are just an ignorant fool so don't let it bother you. Just go on and practice the virtue of humility and you might come to apprehend the truth one day.
This is such an embarrassingly terrible complaint. Ecclesiastes tells you there is a time for everything, doesn't it? There is a time for talking about salvation and also a time to speak about other things.
26:45 regarding unity & multiplicity and decentralization. We need to distinguish/understand/see the difference between persons and individuals. A person is fundamentally a unity of multiplicity, one who participates in being. An individual (and its corollary the collective) is a unity of identitatian replicants. A false unity. Christ and AntiChrist. I made a video on Christian perennialism vs religious pluralism which gets into this, if one finds that salient.
@@leondbleondb in part of denominating the spiritual disease at the heart of the West. Imo. Otherwise, people will keep trying to treat symptoms & medicating, rather than becoming healthy.
Thanks for this Jonathan. This match is one I've been waiting for to happen. I saw very early on the similarities. I see a real convergence between you, Ian and John V.
A third philosopher who understood the fundamental nature of attention was Bernard Lonergan. His "transcendent method" begins with the instruction to 'be attentive.' Both of these men would be able to engage with Lonergan well and would have much to contribute to furthering the conversation through asking many important and creative further relevant questions.
This was up there with the Vervaeke conversations in terms of facilitating a bridge between the grammar of Orthodoxy and more contemporary (and to me, relatable) manners of understanding the world. It was a physical relief at times to hear how Jonathan took something McGilchrist said and seamlessly connected it to the Orthodox understanding without hesitation. A series of little bridges over stumbling blocks.
