Very thought-provoking video. I suggest looking into other philosophies that have also looked into the nature of "I" or "consciousness", especially those which tried meditation as their epistemological method for knowing "I". It's interesting because wherever you go, you find that those who tried this method came out with the same or similar conclusions. Whether it be in Chinese Buddhism, Islam Mysticism (Sufism), Vedanta (Hindu Philosophy), or even Christian Mysticism. They always say pretty much the same thing. They say "I" is inherently "empty" and that it is nothing "that is" because it is the very essence of "isness" or "being" itself. They say it is "neither this, nor that" (Chinese Buddhism) or "not this, not this" (Vedanta) because it is not the "content of existence" (things, thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc), but it is "existence without content". "Existence without content" leaves you without any abstractions of anything "that is", so you are simply left with "isness" or "suchness" or "beingness" itself. I know what you may be thinking though, you would assume that "existence without content" leaves you with "non-existence", but it really leaves you with the very nature of existence, which as I said is just "beingness" or "isness". Even Buddha called himself "Tathata" which means "one who realized 'suchness'". This is very hard to make sense of conceptually if "you" haven't experienced it, but either way it's pretty interesting how all these people came to the same conclusion, and through the same "epistemological method" (meditation). As you mention "God" and "Infinite Presence", something else I find interesting is that in most religions "God" is also identified as "Beingness/Isness" (after all, what else can be "omnipresent" other than "beingness" or "presence" itself, as that exists literally everywhere because it is what "existence" is, to "be" is "to exist"). Even in the Torah God's name is "I AM" which again is not an assertion of "I am a being that exists" or "I am present" but rather "I AM beingness/existence" and "I AM Presence"
Which statement is more truthful? 'I am not' or 'I am'? They are a duality. Opposites are The necessary illusion that makes this all possible. All of this strikes me as semantics. How can we talk, and think, if subjectivity is impossible? "Self relating negativity" really doesn't mean anything unless you are very aware of Hegel. We shouldn't have to read the same books, and etc, in order to communicate with one another. There has to be a non-Hegelian way of explaining Hegel's overly abstract concepts. Don't these concepts cancel each other out, and if so, why pursue them? I think we are trying to understand something that is perfectly circular, and when we get back to where we started, we assume we did something wrong, and start all over again. When in fact, it's just the nature of universal reality. Perhaps I just don't understand but what does 'negative' even mean? How can something which is necessary be negative or does it mean non-existent? How can something not exist? At the very least, it needs a container in order to be empty (an illusion) which makes it something. Even a vacuum is something. "void of self relating negativity", is a contradiction. Imho, every single thought we have is overly abstract, and ultimately neurotic.
How is this recherche subject relevant to understanding Orthodoxy theology? Zizek's obscure utterances bring back unpleasant memories of coming across such philosophy at university.
Fascinating... from what I understand, Is this (at least in part) why orthodox have the "essence vs energy distinction"? I'm not orthodox (at least not yet), just learning about it. This sounds very closely related.
I love your work and have been sent into this world, living it, trying to figure out if I should pursue this or pursue that. It's very scary and I'm curious if you think demonic possession interjects between some of these lines being drawn
@@telosbound I take your commentary on Absolute Self being hell in the eastern enlightenment sense where you become that momentary experience. And it was interesting to me.
What do you think of the idea that the self-relating subject is not actually the subject but the rational faculty of man (the thing that distinguishes), which isn't reducible to the person? I see in your book that you separate form and the content of the subject, but the subject is supposed to transcend this universal/particular framing. It seems to me (and I think you hint at this) reducing the subject to the rational faculty of human nature is the cause of the luciferian sin of knowledge (too much light). Well the wrong kind of knowledge, not actual knowledge, or the synergistic energetic participation with God and creation made possible by the Noetic element of human nature. Even supranoetic. Rejecting this ontology leads you into all the problems of dialectics alienating you from the infinite, or monistic annihilation of the self.
Very thought-provoking video. I suggest looking into other philosophies that have also looked into the nature of "I" or "consciousness", especially those which tried meditation as their epistemological method for knowing "I". It's interesting because wherever you go, you find that those who tried this method came out with the same or similar conclusions. Whether it be in Chinese Buddhism, Islam Mysticism (Sufism), Vedanta (Hindu Philosophy), or even Christian Mysticism. They always say pretty much the same thing. They say "I" is inherently "empty" and that it is nothing "that is" because it is the very essence of "isness" or "being" itself. They say it is "neither this, nor that" (Chinese Buddhism) or "not this, not this" (Vedanta) because it is not the "content of existence" (things, thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc), but it is "existence without content". "Existence without content" leaves you without any abstractions of anything "that is", so you are simply left with "isness" or "suchness" or "beingness" itself. I know what you may be thinking though, you would assume that "existence without content" leaves you with "non-existence", but it really leaves you with the very nature of existence, which as I said is just "beingness" or "isness". Even Buddha called himself "Tathata" which means "one who realized 'suchness'". This is very hard to make sense of conceptually if "you" haven't experienced it, but either way it's pretty interesting how all these people came to the same conclusion, and through the same "epistemological method" (meditation).
As you mention "God" and "Infinite Presence", something else I find interesting is that in most religions "God" is also identified as "Beingness/Isness" (after all, what else can be "omnipresent" other than "beingness" or "presence" itself, as that exists literally everywhere because it is what "existence" is, to "be" is "to exist"). Even in the Torah God's name is "I AM" which again is not an assertion of "I am a being that exists" or "I am present" but rather "I AM beingness/existence" and "I AM Presence"
I can't wait to read the rest of your book! Great video as always 👍
Love the connection with Anger Management! Great video per usual
Which statement is more truthful? 'I am not' or 'I am'? They are a duality. Opposites are The necessary illusion that makes this all possible.
All of this strikes me as semantics.
How can we talk, and think, if subjectivity is impossible?
"Self relating negativity" really doesn't mean anything unless you are very aware of Hegel. We shouldn't have to read the same books, and etc, in order to communicate with one another. There has to be a non-Hegelian way of explaining Hegel's overly abstract concepts. Don't these concepts cancel each other out, and if so, why pursue them?
I think we are trying to understand something that is perfectly circular, and when we get back to where we started, we assume we did something wrong, and start all over again. When in fact, it's just the nature of universal reality.
Perhaps I just don't understand but what does 'negative' even mean? How can something which is necessary be negative or does it mean non-existent? How can something not exist? At the very least, it needs a container in order to be empty (an illusion) which makes it something. Even a vacuum is something.
"void of self relating negativity", is a contradiction.
Imho, every single thought we have is overly abstract, and ultimately neurotic.
Great video. Keep up the good work homie and God bless ☦️
Already know this is gonna be good
déjeuner après la liturgie avec vous doit-être vraiment une expérience inoubliable 😂
bien fait !
How is this recherche subject relevant to understanding Orthodoxy theology? Zizek's obscure utterances bring back unpleasant memories of coming across such philosophy at university.
Subject is neat :) ❤
Fascinating... from what I understand, Is this (at least in part) why orthodox have the "essence vs energy distinction"? I'm not orthodox (at least not yet), just learning about it. This sounds very closely related.
Apparently, Zizek's impenetrable philsophy will help.
Your content is quite interesting.
Another W
I love your work and have been sent into this world, living it, trying to figure out if I should pursue this or pursue that. It's very scary and I'm curious if you think demonic possession interjects between some of these lines being drawn
@@telosbound Lines between the absolute self and communion with others
@@telosbound I take your commentary on Absolute Self being hell in the eastern enlightenment sense where you become that momentary experience. And it was interesting to me.
8:26 bookmark
i think this was a little too advanced for me to grasp
HEY I READ THIS BOOK!!!!
@telosbound My last comment probably went in your spam folder. Please read it. I'm trying to help you. Thank you.
Let’s gooo
Real
What do you think of the idea that the self-relating subject is not actually the subject but the rational faculty of man (the thing that distinguishes), which isn't reducible to the person? I see in your book that you separate form and the content of the subject, but the subject is supposed to transcend this universal/particular framing.
It seems to me (and I think you hint at this) reducing the subject to the rational faculty of human nature is the cause of the luciferian sin of knowledge (too much light). Well the wrong kind of knowledge, not actual knowledge, or the synergistic energetic participation with God and creation made possible by the Noetic element of human nature. Even supranoetic. Rejecting this ontology leads you into all the problems of dialectics alienating you from the infinite, or monistic annihilation of the self.
Was pretty interesting until you got to the god part