Iain McGilchrist speaks with the authority of a thoughtful, well read, educated man. His ability to organize and recall vast amounts of information simply amazes me. His style of speaking and his vocabulary are absolutely beautiful. He has challenged me to think and to rethink which is a gift of great enjoyment and value to me. Thank you. Alex is a joy. His enthusiasm is contagious. His contributions to the conversations are appreciated. His youth gives me hope for a more right brained future. Thank you both for modeling how a conversation should be conducted. You both listen to one another and treat one another with politeness and respect. Let’s hope we, your audience, are able to do the same in our own conversations. Thanks to you both.
This was one of my favourite chapters in The Matter with Things. In The Master and His Emissary my 'aha' moment was when Iain wrote about Zeno's paradox, and how that way of thinking may have something to do with the problems of the left hemisphere. Chapter 16 in TMWT really expanded on that and I think enabled me to have a much better sense of when I was being led astray by my own logic. There is a feeling of tension when you consider some of the paradoxes in this chapter, a sense of constant spiralling but never towards a solution. I found that I used to feel this same sensation when thinking about the 'problem' in evolutionary biology of the 'unit of selection' (gene vs individual vs group vs species etc). Clearly there is no one right answer to this question which is independent of reference frame, but the left hemisphere insists it MUST be the gene...
"The incongruity between the concept and reality soon shows itself, as the former never descends to the particular case, and its universality and rigid definiteness can never accurately apply to reality's fine shades of difference and its innumerable modifications." Arthur Schopenhauer, WW&R
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH: The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word. Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down. A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering. For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute. It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent. Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed. Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.' Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good. However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law). The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit). Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability). This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter. Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything. If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth. OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”. For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being. So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth. “In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are. We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is." ************* “God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This. So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness. The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.” Roger Castillo, Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015. “I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”. Lord Jesus Christ, John 14:16 and 8:32.
@@nonserviam751 If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.🤫
My favorite 'unity of opposites' is: "I cry because my Mother doesn't live me." "My mother doesn't love me because I cry." I also like the idea that, to really understand something, you take the two things which seem opposite and hold them in your mind until they no longer seem opposite.
Thank you for the discussions, Iain and Alex, really helpful in understanding the book, couldn’t make sense of some difficult ideas without the light you shine on it.
Oh dear, Oh dear! This chapter seems completely separate from reality! the only examples are those which have been concocted and taught to generations of philosophy students. Not a single example from everyday life. Very disappointing.
Yes, a spiral looks like a circle when viewed directly from above. That's good. One must consider the "context", that is, the "set of (meaning there are several) conditions from which a viewpoint can be derived. Interestingly the word "derive" comes from the idea of one thing "flowing out" (to descend) from one thing into another. And the word "context" use to mean "to weave together". Both invoke a kind of wave-like imagery where movement forward involves both a pushing away, and a pulling together. Perhaps a logical paradox is like a failure to "realize" the true nature of the spiral. To see it from above, you have to actually go there. And to discover from where you'd have to be in order that it appear as like a ladder, you have to actually walk around it to find out, all the while obtaining more and more viewpoints to consider as part of the "context".
We should all believe each other’s, if some individuals giving the ball ⚽️ to another one, and play as a good team, then no matter who’s making the goals, the reality is your team is the winner of the games, because each player has he’s own technical strategies, which is absolutely natural, and even we are going to writing a history about a great individual player, we’ll bring all the capability and ability of that player into consideration,
The promise of eternal life in the Bible does not mean that the Faithful will live through an incessant continuation of time. As IM suggests, eternity is not an addition of infinite number of time. There is a leap to a wholly different dimension, or quality. "And this is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (Jn 17:3). Those who seek to know God in Christ, that is, the ultimate expression of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, have made a leap to that realm, albeit incompletely but really. Rather than pursuing Immortality of Soul, we should aim at the highest possible order here and now: Speak truth, Do good, and Adore beauty.
Greetings Alex and Ian, If the fundamental insight we are pursuing has to do with freeing attention from its imprisonment by the machinations of the left hemispheric mode of inhabiting the Cosmos, then I think that freedom likely comes with the "leap" that you mention and is not gradual... there is no gradual release from our perceptual prison, we are either in it or we are not, don't you think? The leap also requires a release. Consider this ancient Sufi tale. In our discussions and attempts to understand, are we falling over and over again into a trap that returns us to the attentional prison from which we are trying to leap? To free itself, the monkey would need to free it's attention from focusing only on the cherry, and "leap" into the undivided wholeness of flowing movement. How to Catch Monkeys Once upon a time there was a monkey who was very fond of cherries. One day he saw a delicious-looking cherry, and came down from his tree to get it. But the fruit turned out to be in a clear glass bottle. After some experimentation, the monkey found that he could get hold of the cherry by putting his hand into the bottle by way of the neck. As soon as he had done so, he closed his hand over the cherry; but then he found that he could not withdraw his fist holding the cherry, because it was larger than the internal dimension of the neck. Now all this was deliberate, because the cherry in the bottle was a trap laid by a monkey-hunter who knew how monkeys think. The hunter, hearing the monkey’s whimperings, came along and the monkey tried to run away. But, because his hand was, as he thought, stuck in the bottle, he could not move fast enough to escape. But, as he thought, he still had hold of the cherry. The hunter picked him up. A moment later he tapped the monkey sharply on the elbow, making him suddenly relax his hold on the fruit. The monkey was free, but he was captured. The hunter had used the cherry and the bottle, but he still had them.
Everything in the world which comes forward from long time’s ago, weather right or wrong, doesn’t goes away, suddenly! and of course take time’s, if we know what we should do and what changes we should work on it, another words, we can’t act against nature’s laws and moves with truth , if we planted a true then we growing truth, and same to hate, war’s, and forgiveness, and etc….
Just wow ! Towards the end in ways of thinking about truth and insightful questions for Iain prior to , the insight Dr. McGilchrist , gave us ( at least for me ) was fantastic. Just a wonderful progression of the conversation I absolutely was embodied with and found very helpful thank you gentlemen.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Alex described thought experiment and modes of imagining truth. My comment was referring to the conversations progression as they are working out the different perspectives Alex has considered or concerned himself with for “earning” a satisfactory expression or whole and embodied truth. I think he ponders how one may sometimes manipulate an expression of truth over time which becomes a paradox because one might have expressed that embodied truth had one not rebuilt the truth to ascertain modality causally the left hemi mode of solution versus a more embodied spiritual truth that is right hemi.
heap or not, bald or not...these are just inaccuracies of common language which is never precise. but math is precise and Zeno's paradox has to do with wrong math.
Just want to say thanks for doing these precis-teasers of each chapter! I bought the book, but it makes for more rewarding reading to listen to you guys tee up the key points of what I'm about to read.
