Thank you Marcas, for inviting Bernardo on your cast. I love listening to Bernardo. He is an intellect who is not only easy to understand, the beneficence he displays toward all his host’s, is apparent every time I listen. His voice alone is comforting and reassuring.
I think it's clarifying to first of all take as a matter of faith that there are immaterial beings who are something like pure minds. The argument is then that they CAN embody themselves through aggregates, instead of saying every aggregate has a mind corrosponding to it.
This makes sense to me. It also logically follows then that, because these beings are incorporeal, they could exist in a 1:M relationship between multiple “bodies” and thus also under different names. So for example, Angel A could be both the “Angel of London” and the “Angel of Boston” if it were “assigned” to both. In another comment, I posited that “assignment” could come from some act of consecration in which a sacral relationship is invoked, but that’s an ancillary point.
The Hindu idea of the three Gunas might be useful in that idea. The Creative Principle, that which gives God existence is Brahman - the breath of God. Brahman is propelled from its point source out into reality and is expressed in three characteristic ways. Satva Satisfied, satiated, sitting, Rajas Raged, ragged, moving Tamas Tame, dark, sleeping Satva is the set of circumstances wherein Brahman can illuminate and generate the world with wisdom and success. It is where there is a channeling of the impetus of the Creator towards a fertile manifestation of the pure nature of the universe. The Hindus maintain that a successful state of being is one that is enabled by its circumstances. The journey Brahman travels through, from its point source to its manifestation in the world, involves three stages. Causative Subtle Gross When Abrahamic people talk of Angels it seems to correspond to the subtle state of being. Not that the Angels occupy a space or time, rather that by the nature of their manifestation they inevitably describe their 'governing' gunas. Without a causative and subtle state of being the gross state cannot exist. Without a causative state there can be no subtle emenation. So the ghost of a city is not a being so much as a channel through which the desire for the City has travelled to gain manefestation in the gross state. Something has to produce an Angel. Is that God or man? It is both because the City cannot exist without man and man cannot exist without the God figure. So an Angel is man's lens through which he perceives the cause of things, God.
There are no minds that are not physical, biochemical beings who live and die. The absurdity of this obsession with fantasy and superstition is childish and relentlessly destructive in this world. Assertions without proof are the foundation of nothing and only clarify the delusion state of those who assert such things. You are just making stuff up.
@@garykeenan8591 essentialy every culture is brimming over with the experiences of other minds. I don't doubt that, for a human mind, the biological mechanisms are necessary for a "full" experience, but why limit your category of mind to human or animal boundaries. We conceptualize boundaries to understand the world around us, we learn the language of creation, the purpose of objects and their limits. Without your mind and your various sub-minds (your gut, your sub concious systems) you wouldn't be able to function, there would be no direction for your powers. Why do you think the world can function without direction from minds? Why would anything do anything from it own material? Would rock form mountains without being forced to do so? So when we trace back the origin of forces at some point we come to a mind, or we come to a material which is self directing which agian means it has a mind.
My reflections on this are I surrendered to God through my brokenness, and within his world and realm I am supported. Loved, redeemed. The online world which beguiles and offers us the world turns into confusion, mistrust and fear. Then beckons us in again to be healed through more and more elaborate apps, networks and forms of entrapment. I thank you for your bravery in reaching out to others. I really appreciate your time and work 🙏
love it. these kinds of conversations are where reality is found.. so much philosophy is just the enlightenment engaging in self-congratulation. thanks for doing the difficult work to move the ball down the field. we need more of this in the world.
This conversation was beyond incredible. The sheer amount of insights I gained from this is going to require months of unpacking. Thank you, thank you, thank you. God bless the three of you, Bernardo, Jonathan, and Marcas.
Hey Jonathan, John Henry Newman, who was a cardinal, wrote about what you were talking about here. He very much believes in a third level of angelic being. In his Apologia Pro Vita Sua, he goes into detail about these differnt agencies.
Just digest the Meaning Code conversations before watching this, don’t overload myself… just digest the meaning code conversations… just digest… just put it on the watch list.. don’t listen while typing this… And now I’m watching it.
@Cthulhu Poe Science is the religion of our time. Rationality without revelation leads to an ultimate denial of Truth and reality. Trying to explain meta-narratives in rational terms is dead and incomplete.
@@petesake1181 lol I'm just a mechanic, so my apologies if you are expecting me to deliver some deep knowledge. But meta-narrative is a relatively self explanatory term. Just an all encompassing way of looking at a storyline of world events. For instance, most people in the modern Western world accept the historical narrative told by modern academic historians.
@@petesake1181 yes they certainly are. I am not taking issue with rationality itself. I think that people are doing themselves, and everyone that listens to them, a disservice by trying to explain spiritual concepts in scientific language. This is what I meant by the term hyper-rational.
Love Bernardo's defense of the Holy Ghost. Brilliant conversation. Many thanks, Lads!!! PS: Speaking of Ukraine... don't forget to mention the US State Department, when you go down the moral rabbit whole. Bernardo is a genius, but should watch out when he plays in the mine fields of the here and now. (Vaya con Dios, Hermano)
Thank you for arranging this conversation, and for Jonathan & Berndo's intercourse. Bernardo's sensitivity and honesty is ever clarifying, especially his chess experiments. My choices in life seem to reflect his perceptions there. Observations: - We are always entraining and attuning to an ongoing flow; the more modern and constructed the environment does meta consciousness developed within that constructed environment deviate those within it from attuning to that intelligible flow? - That law of divided middle sounds like it removes a mediator between the two and/or context stating authoritatively only on the grounds of adherence to logic's structure or form, the "truth" content being only negatory.
Bernardo's remarks on spontaneous intelligence and chess are reminiscent of the great music teacher Kenny Werner's concept of "the Space," which is an intuitive flow state in which you're able to perform with what he calls "effortless mastery." But as soon as you start to meta-cognize about being in the Space (or anything else for that matter) you lose the effect. Great conversation!
Watch this series on Netflix called Sense 8. Many of the ideas here are touched upon in the show. For example, what a human who has more reliable access to this "spontaneous" or "subtle" consciousness may have looked like. It's also just a great show!
You might be interested in the teachings of Kenny Werner. He's a piano player, but his philosophy and approach to accessing what he calls "effortless mastery" (flow state) is applicable beyond the realm of music.
It seems to me that there is a flaw in the reasoning that we fell into meta-cognition too early, before we were morally prepared. But could it really be in any other way? How can morality develop in an instinct-driven being without self-reflection? Isn't it precisely the tension between self-consciousness and the instincts that initiates moral thinking. Unfortunately, this is probably an inevitable phase of the human condition that we must go through in order to learn how to live without exterminateing ourselves. -- Thanks for an interesting conversation. I look forward to a continuation. /GG
Bernardo accurately describing Jesus Christ crucifixion in his last remarks about us sacrificing the one for the “4 men on the track” which is the many/multitude. Absolutely beautiful
I think of the third agent you refer to in the video as the “self”. When acting in servitude of others and Christ, I don’t believe that is our own “self” but rather doing what we are meant for in our spirit/consciousness. I really love the use of mandala nail and string art as an analogy. The self …I “AM” …seems like the knit mandala in string art, with the most inner portion as the soul which the Lord “knit” and “weaved” in our mothers womb. I often view the spirit or prima materia as the multidimensional…. “I” AM…. Or the substance of the thread and center of the mandala in string art. I view the nails as the physical mind and body as part of the self. After exploring the electromagnetism of the heart, it is not unlikely that our spirit/ aura is a toroidal field or a torus, which is a 3-Dimensional mandala.
When discussing the berserker, I think Bernardo took the conversation in a direction different than what Jonathan meant. I believe berserkers were in a flow state connected to nature. However, in a state separate from meta-consciousness there isn’t hyper-awareness of morality. Rather the primordial, non-moral fight for survival.
I would love to hear the exploration of conscience-ness vs. consciousness. Does the symbol of the cross, the up down relationship signify or relationship with consciousness and God or the spirit of Truth- conscience. The current scientific community is plagued with illuminism and ascensionism. God Bless you Jonathan! If I never get to meet you in this life, I look forward to praising the Lord with you in the next!
About the game of life analogy. Simple rules can generate complex results without an internal consciousness, but it requires you, the agent, to put those rules in place. The angel is more like the programmer in this analogy then any part of the program.
@@pricklypear6298 This is going past Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy does not care about minute explorations of intellectualism. Is a chair still a chair if it is pulled apart? WHO CARES! REPENT!
Plato’s “forms” come to mind. What is the difference between a rock an animal a man and a country? They all have a form but of different kinds. Lifeless forms and living forms and intelligent forms.
Mr Kastrup said that it is our responsibility to be moral, but isn’t placing moral obligations on mankind the task of an arbiter? And if you’re an arbiter why should we be obligated to follow what you think? Isn’t he just begging the question? He isn’t giving justifications for why we should be morally obliged, he is just shifting the foundations he standing on, from saying something is cruel and not good, to saying who am I to bear the moral responsibility of judging what is good or evil??
DUDE I’ve been saying that there’s this notion of certain creatives tapping into some kind of transcendent stream FOR YEARS I’m ECSTATIC that someone else much smarter than myself has made that observation as well
The bridge between them, that neither seems able to find, is in our DNA. In your DNA is the mistakes and the trials and the struggles and the successes and the love of life of a million ancestors. Written in you is the wisdom of a billion mistakes and a billion close calls and a billion moments of courage. Written in you is a will to live that’s survived famines and wars and epidemics. Written in you is the ability to rise again and again. These forces pull and push us from deep in a nervous system older than language, older than eyes, older than fragmentation, perhaps. And you’re gonna tell me there aren’t forces with agency present when two people meet and talk? If nothing else, the urge to hug, the search for delight, the reflex to smile, are angels of connection that link us.
BK: "We fell into meta-cognition and broke our relationship with the harmony of instinct before we where prepared." But the the question arises. How can a creature prepare for something it can't experience or even be able to imagine. Isn't that precisely the problem with the human condition. We need meta-cognition in order to understand it, and learn how to handle its consequences. It's a kind of navigation through dead-reckoning towards a goal we don't know where, or what, it is.
Excellent exchange of ideas. Just a few followups/reflections: 1. It's not clear if the pre-metacognition phase of human history is necessarily a better one, f.ex. morally. The "harmony of instinct" could easily be a more greedy, selfish, violent and murderous condition for early humans. 2. The angels and demons inside of Kastrup could in some way be seen to exist independently outside of him, as forces/dynamics of nature. The "spirit" or force or dynamic of Greed and Pride, or Humility and Temperance, could be seen as transcendent and spiritual entities that manifest across the planet and in 8 billion people. 3. The question of moral responsibility in a Naturalistic vs. Divinely created cosmos is complicated, but the central idea in f.ex. early Catholic Theology would be that we as humans have Free Will, and that is what constitutes our being in the deepest sense. If we do not have free will, we don't "exist" as living individuals/souls. And that evil to a large extent is derived from humans exercising their free will in destructive ways. This is a major point in Dante (f.ex. the third terrace in Purgatory), that humans tend to "blame the Heavens" for evil, when the fault lies squarely in ourselves, or in the case of that specific reference, the lacking leadership of the Church.
Great analysis. I’d add that the free will point might lead to some room for connection between these perspectives. Ultimately, some of the things (even in nature) that we see as ‘evil’ are a byproduct of our limited scope in understanding a divine plan (hence why the suffering in our lives can be meaningful). When we are given the ability to have free will as metacognized beings because we are disconnected from the totality of God, we create suffering ourselves. But in tandem with creating unnecessary suffering, we also become conscious of what is good and become capable of bringing Gods good will into the world. As such, it is not that God is without morality but rather that through our granting of free will we become agents capable of creating heaven on earth, the kingdom of Jerusalem, which is our divine purpose. Another point that might influence the conversation is the notion that God’s being is love/willing the good of the other. With this in mind, the spontaneous intelligence is not unfolding ‘just because’, but instead unfolds from a perspective that ultimately benefits His creation over time. Even if this requires us enduring suffering and the freedom to be malicious, in time Gods will which is by nature loving will manifest and prevail. Hopefully I’m putting this in a way that makes sense haha, this convo really approaches the barriers of using intellect to understand God and reality, and at a certain point you have to default to faith and trust in God as the human brain isn’t capable of fully grasping the complexity of it all.
The question is whether god actually made the world good teleologically. If he did, then he is in contradiction because evil exists, either through human free will or otherwise. If he didn't, then he is in contradiction because the bible said that he did. It's that simple. Either way their main disagreement was over metacognitive (self aware, value based) creation versus spontaneous (instinctual) creation.
Is an instinctive self-preservation behavior of a pre meta-conscious individual "selfish" or "greedy"? No, these are meta-conscious concepts. It is pure nature that serves the preservation and propagation of life, and does so in a harmonious, but amoral, balance between individuals and species. Or metaphorically speaking. Paradise before the "fall" was a state where life lived off other life in the same bloody way as today, but there was no one there to meta-cognitively describe it.
Pertaining team sports, it's definitely memory and training related. They don't just know stuff without the many hours of rinse and repeat in order for the members to form their "predictive" play. The same happens with people who learn to play instruments. We are not just singular entities although for stability, the elements forming us tend to maintain a unique state. But at the end of the day, we are very influenced by external factors: genetic, psychological ones etc. We are part of the universe which is itself one thing that can't be 100% stable or in full control. Not totally off-topic but maybe if you would/could have a talk with Michael Jones from Inspiring Philosophy since besides being versed in Christian apologetics, he likes talking about the mind in relation to quantum physics and God.
This conversation between BK and JP can be characterized by an attempt to find common denominators (mapping) between the Christian worldview and Analytical Idealism and especially in relation to the creation story in genesis and its implications such as the existence of good and evil etc. What I'd like to hear BK unpack, is his take on which version of western religious tradition best maps the cosmology of Analytic Idealism. Is it the Christianity according to St. Paul or is it some Gnostic version.
Not sure on Bernardo's insistence that we as conscious agents are the only thing with strictly defined borders. Even his example of "if I stick a needle in me I feel it, but if I stick a needle in my chair I don't" doesn't hold for me. It really depends on how fond you are of the chair, i.e. how much you love it. A more obvious example is that you certainly would "feel" a needle being stuck in a loved one. You would probably even "feel it" to a higher degree if a needle was, say, stuck in a loved one's eye vs stuck in your earlobe. Doesn't that make the loved one part of me by his definition? And their eye more a part of me than my own earlobe?
Bernardo’s “all our categories are nominally carved out”-and with it, his hard distinction between epistemology and ontology-seems a bit moot when we remember Man is he who name things and gives them their identity.
I am a bit uncomfortable with the whole 'if I stick a needle in my arm, I can feel it, but if I stick it on the chair, I will not feel it' wrt to the boundaries of self. People lose sensation due to nerve damage on parts of their bodies. Does that mean that these parts of their bodies are not theirs anymore ? Does that mean that our boundaries are determined by our nervous systems ? Kastrup lightly touched on it when speaking about hair by then bypassed it
I don't find this argument compelling at all. If it was an antique chair or a chair that I was otherwise particularly fond of, I might well "feel" a needle being stuck in it. I might even "feel" it "more" than a needle in my earlobe.
1:49:28 Ironically because he takes for granted Christian morality and subconsciously uses it for self-evident justification. If not for the narrative of the Christian God, he would not necessarily consider the strong trampling the weak evil in the first place, and he certainly wouldn't consider Putin's actions as presented by the West (that take up 90% of his Twitter feed and also somehow found its way into this conversation) as such.
That is where I realized he has a superficial mind. He is another Atheist parading Chrisitian morality without giving due credit to Christ. Ironically he even quotes Nietszche, who made a point to mock such Atheists.
I don't see a problem with seeing angels at all of those particular levels. That would be like saying any action I do is me embodying/hosting many angels. Sometimes the right ones and sometimes the wrong ones.
The insistence that language / names are arbitrary was a key point for me somehow. I might have agreed in the past but not so sure now. A thing that is useful is not arbitrary , a thing that everyone finds useful is something like a fact. You can argue the shape of a hammer is arbitrary but do some hammering and tryouts will soon discover that it is not. Somehow this links up with Matthieu’s comments on the importance of making bread. Perhaps Christianity is actually the more grounded way of looking at the world. The more is learn the more I get tired of the thinky talky.....
Agreed, what he said regarding words, categorization, and defining boundaries felt partially true but stated with too much confidence, like the ocean and the river. It seems useful to separate the two because reality seems to unfold around these physical bodies as though they are separate but permeable. Do the usefulness of many categories seems to correspond with their ontology, and not just in a sea of useful things. It's like this: if animals organize themselves around natural formations, and animals have minds, and minds are a part of the universe, then minds are in some part determined by the space around them, which is not arbitrary. Recognizing distinctions isn't just for the function of the being that has the mind to navigate things practically, but to actually understand what it is and how it is formed in relation to everything around it. It's not just useful, it's grounding and reflective of truth, which is the source of usefulness in things. One could go further and say that reality is organized for the sake of things that have minds, and so the categories that minds make cement reality in a certain sense. But that's a couple leaps forward from the language thing.
40:35 I don’t think he is intending it this way but when someone starts trying to make the claim that the planet is part of the car, I see it as sophistry. If we are going to be that absurd with our categorizations then I can say I am the universe, which most know is an absurd statement. I think he is trying to make some kind of point but it is going over my head because he gets lost in the sauce of the wording. Academics seem to hit some kind of point where they completely lose touch with reality and then think not they are ridiculous but that the commoner is ridiculous because he is grounded
If a named thing helps you do more, understand something, reproduce and flourish life and support people then, then I don't see how it can be arbitrary. Like being a crop rotating farmer that can now put more food on their families plate doesn't seem arbitrary or simply nominal. It seems to help grow. I agree with your thinky thinky point. My Catholic friend seems to be very grounded, just gets the good things going and his family is growing more and more even through difficulties.
I don't mind that Jonathon is curious about how there could be, for instance, an Angel of China. But I wish he would push against the boundaries a little more than simply stating it and making cool analogies. I'm certainly wrong, but it comes across to me as if he is just captivated by an idea that he hopes is true in some way, rather than seeing if it can be coherently thought through, including the role of real Imagination in coming to such understandings. Maybe there are other videos where he does push against the problems inherent in trying to find how such an idea could be true AND how it could be known.
99% of all of his videos where he is discussing with others, I find I think Johnathan is making great points and is usually introducing a new spin to the other person in a way that shows Johnathan has thought a lot about it and is seemingly correct/thinking on a deeper level... this video was a rare 1% case where, as you said, he's seemingly defending an idea he hopes is true.
@@chicopapass Yeah, I don't mean to over generalize about him. In other conversations, I've noticed that he is typically talking with people more like himself in terms of thinking stye. They don't really pressure test their ideas as much as treat the idea as a painting and see how beautiful it is in connection with theological motivations. It isn't that I think an Angel of China is necessarily impossible, but unless you are simply evoking an idea that feels 'right' with other kinds of theolgoical ideas, I don't find it as interesting a thought.
I think the primary issue here is that the two are of such dramatically different worldviews that it is impossible to move the conversation forward into deeper territory without first establishing an initial common ground. For example, having listened to Jonathan for years now I found what he was saying to be fairly obvious and self-evident. Not to say that it is trivial, because this is a complex topic, but I've heard him discuss these topics long enough that I know what he's driving at and why, so the notion that there is an "Angel of China" is not so much an interesting thought experiment as it is an established truth that can lead to ever more interesting and deeper questions. But this conversation can't really go past that until that is first established as a truth (or at least a potential truth) by both parties. Having listened to the recent video on geometry, a comment was made that I felt went a long way towards explaining these divides. A lot of cognitive science, from what I have observed, appears to be built on perennialist foundations, which is in turn built on Vedic tradition, which has common ground with Gnostic philosophy, all of which have a particular understanding of the relationship of the One and the Many that is at odds with the Christian understanding as far as I can tell. In the Vedic mindset I have continuously encountered the notion that the ultimate fate of the individual who excels is to be reabsorbed into the Divine Oneness and cease to be. I could be wrong but that is what it seems to be. Christianity, conversely, asserts that the closer the individual draws to God the more unified we are whilst paradoxically the more our individuality is reinforced. This conversation seemed to me to be more about the divide between these two worldviews than the question of whether a particular god exists or not and what it means if it does.
I think that Jonathan's bringing in Christian dogma to support his arguments misses the crux of the matter. Existence is NOT humancentric! I am greatly impressed by Bernardo's understanding of the Genesis narrative of the 'Fall'! Knowing Good and Evil fits into being 'Meta Conscious'; knowing what to choose. Further, this was the stage at which both man and his wife knew they were naked; they knew that they knew. The idea that they knew that each was naked, was the evidence of the illusion of separation, which, in my view, is the original sin'; each entity thinking that it is separate from the other and aspires only for ego satiation. The ''Fall', which did not happen only to Adam and Eve, but to the total of humanity, is nicely captured in Hebrews 9:27 - where it is indicated that every human being must experience this, in, "And as it is appointed unto men, once to die, but after this the judgment:". The next verse - Hebrews 9:28 - explains what the judgment is (through the colon at the end o verse 27); those who look up to Christ, shall experience the "second coming of Christ" - (they shall get salvation; go back to that state in which they realize unity with ALL that is, that Jesus Christ tells his disciples in John 14:20)! So, yes, what Bernardo calls Mind At Large, in its original state, is instinctive. The onus is on Man, to realize the mistake, and make steps to go back to that state where developed intuition knows reality as it is; to develop the mind to the Christ Mind spoken of in Philippians 2:5. And, the choice is individual!
Oh Man!!! Why am I destined to fall in love with two married men who live on the other side of the world??? Probably just as well...😅 That was so fantastic! Thank you 😍
If the fall into metacognition happened "too early", what does that mean in terms of deciding whether creation was created metacognitively or spontaneously? My first intuition points to metacognitively because for some reason I perceive a spontaneous process to be unable to make such a mistake. It looks as though spontaneous creation would always follow a natural pace and only metacognitive agents blinded by their narrowing of scope and lack of big picture vision can commit such a mistake. But this would have to presuppose a limited metacognitive Creator deity, which in Christian terms wouldn't be called God since God should be both metacognitive and complete. Is that possible or is it an oxymoron? To have complete vision of everything while being metacognitive at the same time? Is that how powerful God can potentially be? A any rate, the mistake of bringing about metacognition too early in my mind can only be attributed to a lesser metacognitive agents, eg, an entity who somehow had a pivotal role in introducing metacognition to humans, but it isn't humans nor is it God (nor is it a spontaneous agent). Who could that entity be?
Meta-consciousness sounds like the way of the left hemisphere, the grasp, grab, right-handed survival, microscope, engineering/solving of specific narrowly-framed problems to solve and spontaneous intelligence looks like right-hemisphere intuition, imagination. Bernardo’s way of seeing seems to map nicely onto Dr McGilchrist’s thesis. Both hemispheres are essential.
I don't think meta-consciousness as such is directly linked to either the left or right hemisphere. Meta-consciousness is an awareness of one's thought processes and an understanding of the patterns behind them. This is what makes it possible to contemplate the difference between the right and left hemispheres.
Talking about agency and trying to find an inner life of China I think its obvious we can't find that at least in the way we judge agency. From Jonathan's view wouldnt it be better to focus on the patterns being primary. I would like to think China is a certain pattern of all things Chinese and those patterns have agency but its derivative or borrowed from its actual people and the complexity of pattern coalescing into one. Thats just at a phenomenal level. Spiritually speaking there is indeed an Angel in dominion or even several that I believe does have an inner life and agency and rather functions phenomenally through the above mentioned patterns. But I see that I've not answered the questions they are discussing and just maybe restated the divide betwen the physical and the spiritual. My answer would be that its within our being and consciousness that we bridge the two hence man being a mediator. So its really incarnational.
The Ruler of the walled city puts guards at the gate with instructions to hang anyone who lies about the business he has for coming into the city. Nasrudin approaches the gate. The guards ask "What is the reason for coming to the city." Nasrudin says: "I am on my way to be hanged." The guards say, we don't believe you, you are lying and are be hanged. Nasrudin says, Okay but if you hang me, then I wasn't lying so in that case, the rules say you are not to hang me. Is this an example where "the law of the excluded middle" has broken down?
The sudden experience of self-consciousness as need-lack was not 'too early' but nonetheless traumatic, as a basis to develop a persistent 'imaged' object reality focus. Thus was linear time 'created' through which to experience linear pathways within unfolding cycles (words cant serve this but only sketch). You could just as well say - we missed it because we were too late - and have never been able to catch up - as you can that we were too early and driven to catch up. yet syncronicity is 'invisible' to a fragmenting mind masking in All the king’s horses and all the king’s men.
Re: 16:00 What if the creation of the 3rd party is dependent on some kind of consecratory act. So the “angel of [city]” exist when a conscious sacral establishment of it is made. At which point that being becomes attached to it in some way as to become its protector/intercessor. Similarly to the way people can have guardian angels or patron saints, larger bodies can also have them but also require some kind of formal ritual to bind them. This would make some sense of the phenomenon of urban sprawl since it contains no ordering principle in which all parts can participate and consequently feel dead or lifeless or so easily fall into decay.
Rudolf Steiner would agree with the idea that angels are created by human intent. When two people get married, for example, an angel is created that could be called the "angel of the marriage." Same for any group of people who make agreements between themselves, including businesses. And Steiner definitely believed that there are archangels overseeing nations and continents. So, there's that.
What if love is the energy that fractures the one to become the many just as love is the energy that calls the many back home to the one. God is not one or the other state but the state of eternal flow between the two. God is the one whole story. Eternal and infinite oneness is overwhelming (a sort of trauma to use therapeutic language). Love is the driving force that causes universe to seek itself in the form of the many.
The cellular automata game Life doesn't do anything intelligent, doesn't solve problems, unlike teams, relationships, the English language, customary law, the economy, etc.
When will people realize there are levels of abstraction and it's not just all arbitrary? The set of nobel gases is more concrete than say grouping elements by their color in liquid form.
In section 00:52:12 where BK made reference to Jung it was obvious that JP didn't want to follow up on the implications of that line of thought, and preferred to change subject. I've seen that in other videos too.
If this guy could name or describe one thing in itself, that exists without human categories, then he would have a lot more of a point. What does it even mean to exist in itself beyond the human purpose driven category? Maybe he only believes in the quantum wave field? But even this is the result of a scientific theory useful to humans that we also KNOW is incomplete
@@suppression2142 the other guy. Jonathan has clearly shown in the past that the world is made of attention, and categories, and even the angels are in some way there to serve us. How philosophers think they can speak beyond the sphere of human experience is beyond me - it's like they've uncritically swallowed the scientific world view, which is useful as a tool for investigating phenomena, but not as a metaphysics
@@celloguy he's using his human experience to try to think beyond the human experience, he's not including himself in his model of the universe right? He's literally pretending he doesn't exist within his theory in some sense. Which is fine if you admit that's what you're doing and hopefully include yourself within your model.
@@celloguy The other thing is Bernado appeals to absolute standards of truth and morality he assumes the uniformity in nature as a scientist but has no absolute basis on which to account for these things at all, everything is ultimately arbitrary in his world view which means his pursuits are ultimately meaningless morality can't exist when he says who are you to judge? Thats a judgement in itself which assumes judging something when an absolute standard of morality doesn't exist, is wrong and that we have even more of a responsibility, which in his very saying of this shows he believes in an absolute standard of morality so hes self refuting himself.. the thing is he's assuming very specifically the Christian worldview but he's unconscious to it its like a blind spot. Even when he complains about God and the problem of evil if he complains about evil he proves Christianity to be true immediately because without God there is no such thing as good or bad or anything at all truth can't exist without an absolute standard of meaning, a lamp without it's light would not even come into existence but even if the lamp without the light could exist it would mean nothing without it's purpose "the light bulb", and so he's sneaking morality in when he can't account for it and hes sneaking meaning in. When he was using the last argument I believe it was like a utilitarian argument I would just say you have to choose the lesser of two evils and yes we live in a fallen world where evil things happen but if you're an Atheist you have no basis on which to complain to God about evil things existing because without God nothing is evil or good at all not even as a social construct because what if another society decides arbitrarily to change that, even Bernardo on his own terms did not have an answer to this dilemma Johnathan kinda pointed to this, but didn't push enough on this point I think which is fine I suppose he has a way of making people just realize things on their own. Johnathan didn't even respond to the last argument lol.
@@suppression2142 basically take the ring, and pretty baubles. But turn and high tail out with smoke and mirrors, guns and arrows. Coz that thing doesn't actually bring a Crown and Throne. 🤨
Jonathan points out something important when talking about the collective consciousness/the angel of China. Human being is a collective of cells. Bernardo grants that biological organisms are conscious, he grants that multicellular organisms are conscious as well. But he states that individual cells are just pixels on the screen of perception. Biological research doesn't seem to support that. There's no difference in terms of behavior between unicellular organisms and cells in a organism. And if single cells, behaving in an intelligent, supposedly conscious way come together to creates us, why a collective of people cannot create collective consciousness or why they cannot be dissociated alters of that consciousness (if there's any difference between the two but wording)? Multicellularity may hold a key to the combination problem in panpsychism. Or an organism might be a collection of potentially dissociated alters (when a cell dissociates it becomes a cancer cell). Denis Noble says that there's no priviledged level of causation in biology. I would say that there's no obvious reason why there should exist a priviledged level of organisation in the realm of consciousness, namely our level, level of multicellular organisms. If there are rules governing creation of us (and our consciousness?) from single cells, they should also apply (at least in principle) to ants, bees, termites, mole-rats, families, corporations and nations. Unless our consciousness doesn't come from our constituent parts and cells, tissues and organs, behaving intelligently (supposedly consciously) are seperate consciousnesses inhabiting our bodies. How to delineate boundary between two conscious agents and when does this boundary shift?
Spengler saw civilizations as living organisms with a telos. He identifies the "angel" of the West as a Faustian Spirit. Does anyone know if either JP or BK address Spengler's ideas?
I'd love to see a contemporary revisit of Oswald Spengler's _Decline of the West._ His work was my first introduction to this concept of civilisations being like organic entities with their own births, lives, and deaths including being specific enough even to predict a consistent "life"span of a general civilisation.
You may already know this but some dissident right youtube folks have been digging a little into Spengler. Check out Auron MacIntyre and Morgoths Review - they introduced me to him.
Top down or bottom up makes me think of Jacobs ladder with angels moving up and down from and to heaven and earth or the Jungian idea of the quaternity and man's movement though high and low aspects of that
Regarding the nature of a 'car,' Jonathan says that the limit or its reality is in the name/concept. I wish he would push on this and see that while it's so easy to simply say that, it is very unclear what that means. When my little daughter used the hood of the car as a table, did the car becomea table? When I use the car to write a creative message in the sandy parking lot, does my car turn into a pen or pencil. If you laugh and say, "No, in those cases you are using what is obviously a car to act AS IF it is a table or pen," then you must go back and redefine what you mean by car, because you said it is the functional concept.... If I make a set of motorized rollar skates 20 times bigger, hop inside, and drive to the store, am I in a car or am I in big rollar skates? Anyway, my point is simply that just because we can quickly notice a conceptual category, we at least need to struggle with what it would really entail to then speculate about that categories ontic reality.
Have you read Matthieu’s book? What he means by this becomes a lot clearer when you can see the many diagrams he uses to explain these questions. Full disclosure I’m still learning and am no expert. “Meaning” (heaven) comes from above and is laid on top of meaningless matter (earth) which expresses that meaning. Our role as humans beings is as mediator between the two. To take the meaning from above and apply it appropriately below. So the hood of the car could act as a table, but it’s at the margins of what a table *should* be. It is sloped and uneven, might be hot and dirty, is usually in your driveway and you can’t sit on all sides of it. In fact it’s a terrible table. If you would act as if it’s a good table you would find that reality “bites back” at some point (when your glass rolls off it or you want to eat but it’s raining outside). A good table is flat, capable of sitting multiple people, it’s purpose is to host meals, whatever. Now even if you have a dining room table you can misuse it and use it as a coat rack or place of general clutter. Now you aren’t eating proper meals with your family or you are spilling food on the couch as you eat it in front of the TV, ect. Now that’s on a local level. The table also stands for something on the communal level, the cosmic level, ect. Something like a special space where time is carved out of the day to break bread with loved ones. A hood of a car will not do.
Yes the hood of the car becomes a table, a bad one, but still a table. And yes your car turns into your writing-device, again a bad one. Things are identified by their purpose and not everything is able to fulfill a specific purpose yet even being good at it.
@@rooruffneck It seems a large part of the confusion here relates to differences in basic presuppositions and worldviews. I don't believe Jonathan draws these sharp differences between ontological, conceptual, nominal, etc; precisely due to a different anthropological and teleological understanding as Fake Names reply points at. As an excercise, I would be interested to know your "ontological" position on the very category "ontic reality."
What if the speed of consciousness moving is perceived by us inappropriately. I think I'm referring to relativity when I say that we see things differently and experience them the way we do because of our size. But the way a bug might see me is slow. Does this make sense to anyone else?
yup some of us are calling it the divine link these days it is the actualization process that is spoken of when 'the mysteries' or 'the unseen world' are in play i've been saying these things for years damn i shoulda gone to college....
Bernardo has some issue where he seems compelled to play devil's advocate and to bring up the exception to disprove the rule. Although this might have some value, I find it terribly annoying that he wants to nitpick until the definition fits his glossary to an unreasonable degree. It slows down the discussion and actually prevents arriving at a consensus. Something very relativistic about this way of analyzing ideas.
1:41:26 Perhaps the Cross of Christ, along with everything it represents, is also the act of God Himself taking responsibility for the necessary evil and suffering that creating the world made possible.
F.A. Hayek describes spontaneous orders, or systems of human action but not human design. A team or even a relationship is such a thing. These systems can be usefully modeled as having agency. The body is another example. Why did the body push this toxin out through the skin instead of the urine? Because it determined that particular toxin to be to too harsh for your delicate kidneys to process.
12:17 just as China can "feel" relevant damage (sometimes), also (sometimes) humans can have sensory disorders, or be anesthetized, or be subject to skilled acupuncture, such that their spatial body is in fact being compromised but there's no perception of it
13:17 there is a "meme" image I've seen, where someone's taken as educational model of a brain with the nervous system, and superimposed a caption onto it-"you look like this"-and that's probably _true_ in an important sense
running after the thief apes just to keep the message (intact) is other punishment in addition of being imprisoned among the apes on the planet of the apes!
I don't think Bernado's understanding of quantum particles is correct. If it worked the way he says it does (around 1:00:00) as probability distributions and 'not really waves' you wouldn't have interference patterns in double slit experiments.
Maybe the angel of China did not exist before China was built, but the angel of China was begotten by a more ancient type of angel. Perhaps ancient Egypt or Assyria or something… Or some type of planetary angel.
@@almondtree it certainly does inspire a deep and fundamental rule for the spirit alone to adhere to when treading paths beyond our collective human understanding. So mm that's a hard one. Maybe it's just a reflection of the preferred values, principles and virtues for individual choice making? Like your personal David Star made for you alone to follow. Maybe 🤔... idk. After all each person is unique.
@@missh1774 I like this idea of a personal David Star to follow. Beautiful and touching imagery in that. And I think it’s true. It’s worth me spending time to meditate on. I’d like to hear you say more about it, or explore that idea more. Is there a specific reason you used the term “David Star”?
By the way,Faith without irrational thought somewhat pointless. Personal faith supported by personal experience is a different thing. We should give great difference to personal experience but not total. We can all be decieved our personal experience. For a brief period, I was moved enough by.. Christian myth to join a Church. Later in on I processed the required beliefs rationaly, and no longer accepted rhem. Rational thought trumped emotional need
Words are believable, not arbitrary. Similar words do appear cross-culturally and can be tracked along history. They are sounds that carry meaning. The post-modern condition can deconstruct any-word into a series of unmeaning phonemes. It could be argued that words have a nature, though I wouldn't make that argument. Overall, the words we believe in are the ones we relate to. True words that describe things nobody relates to, fill empty dictionaries. I do deeply enjoy the subjectivity of all men Bernado illuminates, a pattern that was lost as we grew over the decades. I don't know how Bernado can engage with both an intuitionistic, three-part logic and at the same time, make analytical two-part logical claims like "this is not that" to build and differentiate all his arguments from the other arguments. It's clear you can come to a "more whole" solution with intuition, but you can't make distinctions or decisions or choices as clearly. The best part of the talk is Bernado's view on naturalistic intelligence and being in a 'state of flow' or listening in on a natural intelligence. A very real phenomenon I've been in and I'm sure we've all encountered before, but I think there is a similar humble listening into (listening through?) the revelations of the water, rather than sitting in a place of multiplicity and listening to the spirit. Idk hard to describe.
"For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” Very Strange conversation. I think that Bernardo is right about his hesitation to label the emerging patterns immediately. I don't think any rule is 100% applicable just because it applies in some cases, surely not every single situation generates a higher "agent".
“There are literally non-literal, fractally unified multiplicative, nominally existing illusions.” SMH these mechanistic babblers are literally existing contradictions. All of his absolute beliefs about nonbelief crumble under Pageau’s applied equal standard.
About Genesis: did you think about the second tree, the tree of life? God says in the Bible that humans have to leave paradise, so they won’t eat from this tree… check it out!
