The Law of Hierarchical Symmetry: Douglas Harding's Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth with Richard Lang
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- Richard Lang, the overseer of Douglas Harding's work, The Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth, joins Karen for a discussion of two chapters: The Whole and The Law of Hierarchical Symmetry.
The experience of seeing that oneself is NO thing
The Whole and the Center
The patterns that connect domains of knowledge
Predicters of a new path for science
The Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth by Douglas Harding
The Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth, a video by Richard Lang:
• The Hierarchy of Heave...
A short video by Richard Lang: • Who Are You?
I’m so happy you were able to have Richard on your channel Karen!
It’s a such a surprise to me that Richard feels most people wouldn’t be interested, or needn’t bother reading THOHAE. It has been my favourite book for many years and one I constantly refer to. I think DH was SO ahead of the times. Although the beautifully simple ‘technique’ that DH developed to show us ‘who we really are’ known as ‘Headless’ is definitely a wonderful gift, not to encourage people to read this book is a mistake IMHO. It is truly AMAZING!
I think Richard might be surprised to find many people in ‘this little corner of the Internet’ WILL want to read this book and I for one would certainly encourage them to do so.
Thank you Karen and Richard for this lovely conversation!🩰 (Dancing Headless).
@jaffa 360 Hello again jaffa! Apologies for the late reply. I’m so grateful to be permanently out of these infernal lock-downs that I’m constantly outdoors hehe!
In fact, I interact very rarely on UA-cam, although I watch a substantial amount, and I don’t ‘do’ social media at all. Perhaps it’s because I interact mainly on Karens’ channel that you ‘see’ me? But anyway, you’re right to assume I’m extremely engaged in all of the interesting subjects encircling ‘this little corner of the Internet’. I love to learn! (or perhaps, I learn to love?).
I must confess to being totally ignorant of an ‘ultra conservative non-denominational church life’. I hear this expression said, but really have no idea of what it means in practice. No one ever expands. I’d love for you to explain it to me if possible?
As to your question regarding my background:
I was marinated in Roman Catholicism before birth. Always loved the ‘Beauty’ of the whole scene and aesthetic, and the wonderful epic story. My scepticism began early, was very strong by aged 11, and by the time I was 18, well ...? Can’t say I have a ‘belief’ today, however, my love for the aesthetic and the story (and its utility) remains to this day. The irony is, my rigorous Catholic education is what anchored my ‘reasoning’ and understanding of Natural Law. I am ‘culturally’ Roman Catholic, like it or not it seems. But then, we’re all culturally Christian eh? If I ‘believe’ anything at all, it is that seeking ‘truth’ for the sake of it ‘should’ be the pursuit, not seeking merely to confirm ones own biases or ‘beliefs’.
In your exploration for other faiths in your “existential desperation”, did you mean you have come full circle and landed back in an UCND Church?
Regarding THOHAE. It is indeed a MOST extraordinary book. It is scientifically rigorous, so take your time if that sort of thing puts you off. The strange thing is, I came across it many years ago in an old book store around Covent Garden. I was immediately drawn by its title. I opened the book and was arrested as I already ‘knew’ this experience of being ‘Headless’ but I’d always called it ‘stepping out of my eyes’. Rather, it was the rigorous and scientific explanation and diagrams of THOHAE that blew my mind. The ‘Whole’ structure laid out in such exquisite detail. What an extraordinary achievement by Douglas Harding. It amazes me to this day. I do hope it has the same effect on you if you decide to purchase it. But then, we’re all so differently the same aren’t we?
BTW, I scored very high on openness and very high on conscientiousness. As JBP would say, “I’m not sure what to make of that”.
@@freedomslunch I suspect you’re going to really appreciate this extraordinary book Paul.
Many thanks to Richard and Karen for this stimulating conversation which reminds the viewer of the symmetry of awareness of one's true nature with awareness of the cosmic hierarchical design---a symmetry ready to lend enchantment to he or she who looks and trusts what is seen,. with gratitude--
I like the last part. Why did you strike it out?
@@TheMeaningCode sorry!! Some kind of computer seizure occurred which I can,' t undo..... Glad you liked the thought!! Cheers--
It's interesting how some books are designed to be experienced, not just things we read and understand
Incredible, this is an amazing conversation. I totally resonate with this
Immense thank you and gratitude for sharing this ❤🙏🙏
@@hemamalinirs1002Thank you so much for the kind words. I hope you enjoy the other great conversations on The Meaning Code.
32:36 Yes, unity and multiplicity held in polar tension, which you only get with a Trinitarian ontology
Agreed. And which DH most beautifully explains with such exquisite detail in this wonderful book.
@@Terpsichore1 Yes, exactly.
54:50 This path of ego redemption instead of denial is explicitly and uniquely Christian. The lesser I AM brought in harmony with the great I AM that is the very source of it's possibility of declaring I am.
Interesting
Anything in particular?
@@TheMeaningCode I have integrated many vision systems into the automation that I design. It is far more difficult than it would seem. Lighting, exposure, focal length, aperture size, lens type, resolution, software and a database of images for comparison are needed to do a simple inspection. For biological sight to even be possible is a miracle. To be able to make sense out of what we see is even more of a miracle.
Another issue that becomes very apparent when designing high speed automation is that everything sensed is in the past.
@@Brad-RB How do you adjust for that factor? Of the fact that “everything sensed is in the past”?
@@TheMeaningCode The latency is planned for. The inspection process always becomes difficult at the boundaries between good and bad. Analog input has to be converted into a digital "good"/"bad" determination. Many vision systems now are incorporating AI so the the database of images is self learning. The database is based on initial "good" part and "bad" part images but the input from marginal parts is refined and segregation becomes easier with "experience". In some cases a closed loop feedback to the upstream process is used to adjust the tooling with the intent of keeping the parts at the mean of tolerance specification (a steep bell curve). The fancy statistical term for that is a Process Capability Index.
@@Brad-RB I love the way these discussions bring up the connections.
47:08 Yes because the neutral observer is actually always the divine point of view. In order to do science you must quiet literally play God. This is perfectly fine so long as you are aware that you are playing and that God exists, it becomes something else altogether when we forget this.
54:15 Exactly .. and you can only get this unity and multiplicity in polar tension via Trinitarian ontology. A non Trinitarian ontology will collapse into identical repetition.
39:16 Sorry, just a sense of open awareness is actually not enough. It robs his work of it's profound sense of the relational ordering of the Hierarchy, and without that, it really is a form of solipsism.
30:20 This kind of perennialism is actually only possible because of Christianity. Even when no Christians do it, they are invariably Western educated and using Christian tools to do it. Only Christians actually care about pluralism for example. So the move to bring all faiths together in unity is a Christian move, only a Christian can do it. It only becomes possible because the Christian story provides for the unity of all things, without collapsing into a solipsistic pantheism, which is what Douglas's view would be without it's inescapably Christian elements.
So, you always send me on a word search. Is this what you mean by perennialism, and if so, what part relates to that? www.theedadvocate.org/edupedia/content/what-is-perennialism/
@@TheMeaningCode I simply mean the view that all religious truth expresses a perennial unified truth. This is actually correct, but oddly it is only correct from the POV of the Christian story and Trinitarian Ontology.
@@grailcountry Yes, indeed. All truth is truth, wherever you find it, because such a thing as truth exists.
56:15 The experience is an obvious intuition, I just think Lewis correctly surmised it was the least interesting part of the entire book.,
Thanks for the time stamps. I appreciate your perspective. Perhaps Harding drifted further and further away from his initial understanding of truth as he became increasingly fascinated with the headless experience and that’s why he felt the experience was more important than the book.
@@TheMeaningCode I actually don't think that at all. I think Harding discovered you it's easier to get people to see Christ by getting them to see. He just didn't think the abstractions were worth being concerned about. I think understanding that is not drawing further away but closer. Having eyes to see and ears to hear is not about affirming the correct set of abstractions However, hierarchy and relationality are not abstractions, they are embodied reality, Lang tends to forget this and his focusing to much on the Headless open awareness alone is actually a move, ironically toward abstraction and away from the full ontological reality of connectedness.
@@grailcountry so you think Lang was misreading Harding’s perspective towards Christianity in his later years?
@@TheMeaningCode no, Harding may well have saw himself a believer in the perennial religion and may not have even been aware of what he was doing consciously. He may have lied to himself, he may have been stuck in modernist framing to see how fundamentally Christian his ideas are. They are far less universal than he supposes, if that was indeed the fullness of his thought. I suspect it was a bit more complicated.
@@grailcountry Please explain how "embodied reality" is not abstraction.