Part Two: School of Nothing Buttery - Three examples of how damaging our current way of thinking is 

Iain you are a wonderful person thank you for sharing your wisdom

I do appreciate Dr.McGilchrist’s insights into the human condition. What is required to have a fuller perspective is the actual experience of union with what is given many names such as the divine ground of being. With this experiential perspective all our various ways of perceiving and interpreting intellectual intuitive ,sensation and emotion are in oneness. Yes we are a process and the flow is in the direction of consciousness of greater love which is the essence of being here on the phenomenal plane and the plane of the ground. I’ll leave you with this takeaway unity consciousness ,Jung’ individuation the true self can only be realized with union ,the perennial mystical experience. Once you break through the inner barrier of egoic fear truth and it’s root love give the inspired inspiration on the path ,the way.

Thank you for sharing your wisdom so generously. ❤️🙏🏼 Norbert Wiener wrote, “We are nothing but whirlpools in a river of water that flows constantly. We are not habitable substance, but self-perpetuating patterns.”

Iain I just love listening 🎶 to you music to my ears...you flow💧🌊

"A much better image of the universe is a symphony, or a dance, or a beautiful piece of choral music, rather than a machine". Indeed, the word uni-verse itself suggests "one song" (though it may not be the technical etymology). My username was chosen precisely to emphasize this meaning. That the universe is a unity of multiplicity. A giant fugue of interweaving voices (galaxies, stars, planets, lifeforms, etc.) that are interrelated and joined together in a cosmic performance, complete with harmony and dissonance, tension and release. The same could be said of an individual person (which ancient wisdom referred to as a microcosm). Each person is a union not only of distinct physical parts (cells, organs, etc.), but of distinct psychic parts as well (drives, desires, emotions, thoughts, ways of being). If we the microcosm are alive, how much more so the macrocosm?

This is wonderful. Thank you and all your colleagues who share their knowledge and wisdom. I couldn't afford to attend a school worthy of your talents.

5:33 I couldn't stop laughing. "Sigh, Richard Dawkins"

Love the faulty towers analogy 😂

Refreshing! Thank you.

Apologies if my point is out of context but this is why I like the work of Professor Robert Sapolsky (Neuroendocrinology). As an introduction to his work I like to reference his TedX talk entitled, The Biology of our Best and Worst Selves. Or his book, Behave.

Thank you sir for your brilliance

In music, interpretation is everything. A machine could play a piece of music flawlessly, from a technical point of view. And it could repeat that ad infintum. But it doesn’t interpret and bring something else to the notes which in themselves are meaningless. The skill and life of the musician/s brings meaning and and feeling with the thing we want to connect with.

I love this. I know this misses the point but a note is actually sped up rhythm, rhythm is pitch. Everything is vibration.

10:00 Motion. Yup. Hobbes met Galileo. Inertia replaced telos. And we've been stuck with that ever since.

Penrose's In Our Time spat with Honderich is interesting. As he says, if computers are to be able to really think they can't be made out of silicon.

new to your work, still exploring...have you done any work on how this current way of thinking as it relates to economic thought and/or the economy in general? thank you.

I would like to ask an experienced musician this question: when you look at and read the score to Beethoven’s 6th symphony is the reading of it beautiful? I can’t read music but can hear it only but wonder very much if a musician has two channels to Beethoven and I have one.

Interesting about music not existing other than in the encounter. Composers such as Mozart internally could experience his entire composition with no physical encounter. Artists like Michelangelo said he saw David fully completed in his brain. By passing their five senses no physical encountering took place. Could we say an imagined encounter for them was as real as a physical experience ?

Bach.. Frank Sinatra.. Irving Berlin.. Rodgers and Hammerstein.. Chuck Berry.. Julie Andrews.. Fred Astaire.. will keep us happy. Thanks for your thoughts. Humans are on a slippery slope at the highest levels, has a 1930s unstable feeling

The Whole is certainly greater than the sum of its parts, the real question is, is it greater than the sum of its parts & their interactions? The influence of the part on the Whole is also the influence of the Whole on the part! Have you read Gregory Bateson & his Cybernetic Epistemology?

Inspiring! Interesting how “flow” (as discussed by Csikszentmihalyi) also refers to a kind of order through which creativity, mastery, & amazing insights are achieved. One might conclude-from this psychological perspective-that we’re not merely pawns in this process of flow, but rather integral parts of & critical players in it.

Thx

Dawkins was quite helpful in an odd sort of way. He made me realise that if by the unlikely chance that he was right and there was no God and we simply died then I would never have to meet him in the afterlife. It was quite comforting.

Boil anything down to it's dregs, all is left' Is that nothing' is anything, and everything, is' nothing, at all. And without any meaning, in the least bit..

Woah Everything in existence is a binary expression of vibrating energy 1: sound decibels vibrating energy 2: sight angstroms vibrating energy 3 thoughts firing synapses vibrating energy 4: 10011100 binary system that communicates call information vibrating energy 5: all that has ever existed as a self aware consciousness is created as a binary expression 6: but the past even micro second ago is over and does not exist The future even a micro second from now does not exist yet Only NOW CAN EVER EXIST ...but... our now consists of FAITH in memories of a past that does not exist anymore... HOPE for a future that does not exist yet... all that has ever existed is NOW which is constantly changing for.. yes FAITH HOPE and LOVE of our self awareness which must be expressed NOW after NOW after NOW as we create our existence as a self aware consciousness.....

5:40 Dawkins' silliness. Oakeshott nailed that. Do geneticists who say that everything is caused genetically mean to include in "everything" the writing of books and articles on genetics?

We know how to turn off a hamster, we just haven't figured out how to turn it back on again.

Is it merely a way of thinking? Or does the perennial problem of our surface impression conscious awareness suggest it's our way of being in the world that is the deeper problem? As creatures of habit-formed behavior, should we be more aware of the dark side of our species capacity for adaptation?

A single note does not exist unrelated to other notes. As soon as the human ear hears a note, it also hears, tucked away within it, other notes in hierarchy. This corresponds to the physics of a vibrating string. In addition to the fundamental tone, the hearers hears notes an octave away, a fifth away, a fourth away, etc. This is the overtone series and one cannot not hear it. There is, in other words, no such thing as an isolated note. The 12-toners believed that and came up with the scheme of treating notes "as relating only to themselves" (their actual language). They tried to make music from an aggregate of individual things (notes) when in fact each note is a font of potential other notes: a "single" note is actually a relationship.

see you guru

Next up - Mozart's G Minor Quintet.

Is it at all fair to interpret right brain behaviour as human, being; while left brain behaviour is human, doing?

Ask a natural scientist to assemble the elements of a flower and to make a living flower out of them. Duh, will be the answer. Life begets life. University minded people, are people who have to separate objectivity from subjectivity with observation. The reality of pure science does not separate the two. Never can the university mind get to know what it understands. It is by knowing that understanding comes and knowing comes from the heart, which makes Solomon say: "Lean not on your own understanding, but in all your ways, recognizre The Eternal and He will make your paths straight." Live and learn, not learn and live.

found poem .... that which is with out cause di vides IT SELF in two more than that thus it begins space ing timing make be live ing and so shall it end one way or an other after a measure is taken of a moment in time space that ....

Wonderful stuff as usual, thank you! (Isn't the idea that most of the human genome is made up of junk DNA rather on the way out now?)

I can’t believe it’s not buttery

taking a radio apart will not reveal its purpose.

You are transfigurating?

Your knowledge of genetics is, I fear, out of date. No one has talked of 'junk DNA' since the huge ENCODE project of 2012 discovered that pretty much all of the genome, not just the 2% or so that constitutes 'genes' is transcribed to RNA. Encode was a successor to the human genome project of 2001 published with a huge spread in NATURE. RNA controls gene EXPRESSION in many ways, some now understood - the real key to what is going on in this (admittedly very complex) machine. I am with your ideas in general - you are saying something very very important, but I think that the 'spiritual' thing exists in the patterns of interaction of machines in societies and is in principle explicable in terms of science, though not the crude science taught and imposed on us today. Yes, Dawkins did a lot of harm, ascribing magical properties to genes. Darwin would angrily reject 'Darwinian evolution' as taught today; he tended towards a Lamarckian explanation, and his 'theory' (which he rightly insisted was a hypothesis) was of Pangenesis, incorporating a quite logical idea of 'gemmules' shed from organs and circulating. That actual 'theory' of his is rarely talked about today, but he was not so stupid as to claim that natural selection created change, and knew that the source of variation was as yet a mystery that he sought answers to.

Get to the point! We need to consider 'intelligent design'. BTW intelligent design does not preclude a machine model.

The Poundshop version of Eckhart Tolle . Or , maybe Tolle is the Poundshop version of him. All these charlatans sound alike after a while..?

Commercial intellectualism. I think his heart is in the right place but this is too cerebral and not experiential. We do not need to describe, just demonstrate. Aw the best.