I’m only 4.5 minutes into the video (30 minutes in of notes and thoughts) and just blown away by how profound the information is. I’m in a stage of questioning and seeking beyond our accepted narratives of the modern world. Both scientific and spiritual. This video gives deep insight into how the two became separated in the first place. I feel it’s going to take me a while to digest all of this but man what a great listen. Studying these topics can be overwhelming especially when you’re self taught. This wide angle view helps tremendously!
The Phenomenon of Man was an incredible revelation to me when I discovered and read it. You have to really work to wrap your mind around De Chardin's concepts. But when you begin to put it together you can never look at the universe and out place in it in the same way. This presentation does a great job of introducing De Chardin to the uninitiated. I could watch this fifty times and still glean new insights from it.
I too am in a similar situation ❤ I wrote a book 20 years ago about the teleological manifestation of the whole universe “The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God” -where “god” is this force which works beyond time and space like meaning does In consciousness as you read words like these. I also show how the universe is a novel or a textbook of symbols we are to learn from and read in order to connect with this creative force. So you can imagine how much I liked this video! 😂👍🏻 I am currently living in my car… have been for the last 4 years partly because of Cornoavirus, but also to liberate time so I can finish my magnum opus where I read the human body structure and the flora and fauna of the Earth-to show what they are as literary devices and symbols as well as practical organisms. Anyway, I’m going to subscribe. Just wanted to say hi friend! ❤
I read it years ago and almost all that I can still remember about is that I thought it was complete and utter bunk from start to finish. I'm an atheist; but for those people who like to believe in god he did try to offer them a spurious rational for their irrational belief.
@@Formscapes that’s really inspiring tbh. I’m a high school drop out, just hated the education system. But always excelled on my own. Amazing to see you producing content like this. I plan to do the same but in a different area. Currently have a fitness channel but planning on starting philosophy and esotericism. Very motivating to see such knowledge and articulation here. Hope to find my own version!
@@BrendanTietz Best of luck to you! I'm somewhat well versed in Anthroposophy, ancient astrology and Kabbalah, so I might be of some use with esotericism, even though it isn't my realm of expertise per-se. I dropped out of high school when I was 16 it was a miracle that I even made it that far lol. I did go to college for a few semesters (I lied about my HS diploma and evidently noone ever checked), and that was a much better experience than HS but it still wasn't my cup of tea. I'm extremely adhd so I can't just sit and a read a single book cover to cover unless I am just completely enthralled by it, so I will buy like 5 books and read a bit of them at a time until I finish them all over the course of like 6 months. It works for me but not for academic deadlines. C'est la Vie. Also I could probably benefit from your fitness stuff. I'm sick of being a shrimp lmfao
Yeah, I don't necessarily think Chardin was 100% correct in the details, but I think his ideas are indispensable nonetheless. He goes far beyond where most philosophers and scientists of his age were willing to go, and his feel for the sheer profundity of existence itself is breathtaking.
what an amazing channel, so glad to be here. thanks fo sharing. McKenna's mentioning was on the spot i think some Michael Levin work also supports some of the what is described also some of the description of slime molds use of their environment as a substrate to an outer preception system, thus being drawn toward an outer to itself advancement
Thanks! I'd really like to do some videos on biological cognition in things like fungi, embryology, colonial organisms, etc. I'm planning on doing a whole series on Philosophy of Biology (specifically with regards to Haraway, Varela and Bergson) eventually so maybe I'll be able to get into all that.
Maybe the potential universe is infinite but the actual expressed universe is finite and evolving towards infinite. To this journey there is no possible end.
Great video! Its truly remarkable that the foundations for things like radio waves and telecommunication over thousands of miles of distance actually exist in physics, almost as if the noosphere was pre-planned in some way. Of course its alot of speculation but certainly interesting to think about.
There's this other UA-camr guy who I've been watching recently who spoke about a psychedelic experience he had in which he saw what he believed to be the future; he said it was like a titanic, transforming, "living" cathedral so large that it could contain galaxies... is that what this whole universe is about. Creating that? Wild though for sure
Evolution being "random," had always bothered my intuition. But that is also because I have a weird uneasy feeling about the concept of randomness more generally. The modern information theoretic use of randomness feels unsatisfactory and maybe even contradictory. Edit: I'm curious about the statement regarding McKenna's ideas, "pulls time itself towards its realization." I think a lot about time, so I'm trying to see if this fits.
Some (Including Chris Langan and Arthur M Young) have argued that "randomness" is actually an inherently incoherent concept, bc any state of reality must somehow be distinguished from its converse, and the very idea of "random" implies that there is no such distinction. McKenna was basically just riffing on Chardin when he said that, though "transcendental object at the end of history" definitely has a ring of profundity to it. As for "pulling things through time", McKenna was referring to Whitehead (specifically Whitehead's notion of "concrescence"), though McKenna also gets a number of things wrong about Whitehead. If you're interested in ideas like concrescence (etc) then I'd recommend checking out my friend Matt Segall's channel. He's UA-cam's resident expert; www.youtube.com/@Footnotes2Plato
McKenna is dope but don't listen to him when he tries to explain Whitehead. There's a video on YT where he explains the meaning of concrescence and it's veeeery not accurate lol
The best explanation of the Omega Point I’ve heard. I think we may be shortsighted and indeed at a loss in assuming what anything is like from the perspective of undifferentiated consciousness, but Gebser points us there in sighting the work of Aurobindo and Advaita in the preface to Ever-present Origin (an insight from a thinker I would’ve never considered if it weren’t for this channels elucidating coverage of Gebser work). Gold.
I would love a video more focused on how Teilhard de'Chardin's views mesh with Whitehead's. The last section of this video where you spoke of this "end point" of unity not existing in some idealized future, but continually being renewed in the present was incredibly poignant.
I studied Pierre de Chardin mais to say the truth I have difficulties understanding him, his concepts are not easy to grasp. Thanks for this explanation
You should do a video on Russian cosmism and how it's affected the transhumanism movements. It has similar ideas mentioned and one of the member of the cosmist that helped develop the idea of the noosphere: Vladimir Vernadsky. Definitely an interesting aspect of occulted wisdom in how it manifested in Russia.
Hegel’s Sublation explains the “grand dissolution/unification” I think. To sublate meaning to dissolve/destroy and to preserve and elevate. I also believe that Hegel’s treatment of time is useful for this discussion, specifically the idea of Absolute Recoil. I would love to see you do a video on Hegel’s Science of Logic in particular.
If I ever manage to get this rolling as a full-time gig then I'll definitely get around to doing some stuff on Hegel. I have a pretty decent understanding of Hegel's core ideas, but I would really need to actually work through The Science of Logic over the course of a couple months before trying to make a video about it. Right now I've got a full time Job and 8 other books sitting in front of me that I need to finish, so I really just don't have time right now, unfortunately. I will, however, absolutely be doing some stuff covering Goethe and Heidegger, both of whom I've spoken about quite a bit already.
@@Formscapes excellent quality videos considering how busy you are and only doing it part time! Take your time and thank you for the work you’re doing. Excited to see the growth
I mention in the video the claim that Human neurophysiology may be very close to ideal, and thus that we are unlikely to develop even larger brains in the future. This is an article which supports this conjecture, for anyone who may be interested in looking into that further: phys.org/news/2015-07-human-brain-ideal.html
In my opinion, the focus on human neurophysiology lacks a great deal of imagination - as such, and even more so in this day and age, when we are all witnessing the current rise of AI systems that were unimaginable just a few years ago. We are not our brains alone. And we've been building brain extensions for decades. And anyone who is even new to using psychedelic substances soon learns that our minds are capable of seeing and feeling the world from completely different angles and perspectives. Shouldn't we have learned by now that whenever anyone thought human development was somehow complete, they were miles off the mark?
Captivated by your work. As a chemist in training, the teleological basis of knowing really fills my subjective and objective appetite for knowing and feeling more. Would be interested in having these sorts of conversations. If you mind me asking, what is your background. I imagine it is in philosophy, but if striking a dialogue were possible, it would be most dazzling. Thank you
@@joechip4822 Well I didn't say that human development is complete. In fact I think that I heavily implied the contrary in the video. Nor did I say that human consciousness is reducible to brain activity. What I said was that human neurophysiology may be very close to optimal, and thus that we probably wouldn't expect to develop brains that are larger in the future.
@@UmbraHand I don't have any academic background. I'm an autodidact. You can email me ofc, and I could send you my discord info if you want. Thanks for watching my stuff though. Much appreciated.
You seem more Western focused, but I'm curious if you ever dived into Sri Aurobindo? As I understand, he, Chardin, and Gebser stumbled upon evolution of consciousness notions around the same time. I've been reading Aurobindo for years, and the depth is unending. If the primary sources are impenetrable, there's a particular interesting book called "The Seven Quartets of Becoming" placing him in a context of Nietzche and Delueze, describing his yogic process as a kind of revaluation of values and "body without organs" intentional reconstitution of the human consciousness. In the case of Sri Aurobindo however, the teological principle of evolution is explicitly utilized (Shakti) to accelerate the individual and collective evolution towards what he calls "supermind". The teology here is the divine life manifested on Earth, with supermind being the "link" between absolute (Satchitananda) and the relative being (in my own limited capacity to articulate this).
I've read a bit of The Life Divine but haven't really delved into it enough to fully grapple with his overall system. I have some speculations about his ideas of Overmind and Supermind, but I don't really like to talk about anything on this channel unless I'm very confident that I can see the turning of the innermost gears, as it were, and understanding Aurobindo would require a rather dedicated study of not only his work, but also the whole of Indic philosophy in general so as to properly contextualize exactly what he's doing and why. This is pretty much the exact same reason I've only mentioned Rudolf Steiner a few times here and there; I could talk about Steiner for hours, but until I can say exactly why and how I think he's right/wrong about the claims he's making, then I'm gonna wait, and there are just too many things that are still up in the air in that regard.
I feel another problem with the anthropic principle is that you're still left with a reality which contains the potenial for complex and intelligent life
That's a good point. We regard potentiality as something which is not in need of explanation, but potentiality is itself an immensely important topic. This somewhat relates to some ideas I've been working with in relation to the topic of "nothingness", taking influence from the Buddhist notion of "emptiness" as well as Schelling and Meister Eckhart's notion of the "abground" or "ungrund". We tend to conflate nothingness with "non-being", when in reality, nothingness is actually pure potentiality, which has a kind of qualitative structure in and of itself, and perhaps even a kind of primordial consciousness.
16:21 Scuds, ghost anemones, Asteriids, snail furs, blue mussels ... In the 1950's Frederick Bang discovered special cells in horseshoe crab blood called ameobocytes.
Deleuze? I'm not sure if he ever had anything to say about Chardin, but he was a fan of both Bergson and Whitehead. I suppose you could say that the Whiteheadian revision of Chardin which I suggested would be more Rhizomatic than Arboreal.
🤲 🌟 May all beings be safe and well. 💫💜💫 May there be peace in the higher regions; may there be peace in the firmament; may there be peace on earth. May the waters flow peacefully; may the herbs and plants grow peacefully; may all the divine powers bring unto us peace. The supreme Lord is peace. May we all be in peace, peace, and only peace; and may that peace come unto each of us. #Om #Shanti Shanti Shanti! Peace! Peace! Peace! (#Vedas, trans. Raimundo Panniker) 👁AHAM🌏BRAHMASMI🌕AUM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTI🌅🕉🤲
Another nitpicky comment (sorry): "telos" mean "end/purpose/completion", while the word for "cause" is "aitia" - hence aetiology. Maybe you could add a visual note to correct it.
I wonder what Professor Sapolsky of Stanford thinks about human carcinisation. The concept of Eros seems explained by the Prisoner's Dilemma. Cooperation gets you more advantage more consistently over longer periods of time. Perhaps the first eukaryotic microbe didn't decide to not eat the other microbe inside of it, or perhaps the microbe within simply mutated into the ability to not be eaten while inside. A passive parasite that evolved into a symbiosis, essentially domesticating the host organism while encouraging its growth. Single cell animal husbandry. But while it might make sense to go from "I want to live so I will create offspring" to "I will not eat my offspring or others I recognize as almost the same as myself", how do you get to cooperation by like single cell organisms? The jump from normal reproduction to slime molds that all come together as individuals to create a giant multi-slime MOTHER SLIME for offspring creation seems like its missing a theoretical step.
Sapolsky is an "evolutionary psychologist". Here is his whole bit; He looks at data which seems to indicate a consistent feature of human behavior. He concludes (with no real argument or evidence at all) that this feature is a universal feature of the human organism which is "programmed" into us by DNA sequences. And then he literally just makes up a story about how natural selection came to select for genes which "programmed" us to be that way. He is completely full of shit, as far as I am concerned.
About endosymbiotic theory; I've always found it much more plausible that mitochondria began as parasites, rather than being the result of failed digestion of prey, as Margulis suggested. The carnivorous explanation seems to retain a vestige of the "dog-eat-dog" understanding of evolution which has been central to capitalism-flavored neo-darwinism
What do you all think of Stephen J Goulds criticisms of Teilhard relating to the pekking man fraud? Any thoughts about about his participation or ignorance in the hoax and how it relates to his theory of a kind of directed spiritual evolution? I had to read Goulds Mismeasure of Man so im not suprised he had it out for Chardin in thr first place because the idea of a directed linear form of evolution was against Gould's presuppositions about evoltuion as a context dependent undirected process.
I don't see any reason to believe that Teilhard had any involvement in the hoax. He was only in China to begin with because the Jesuits were trying to keep him out of their hair and Teilhard barely mentions Peking man at all in The Phenomenon of Man, so it's not like he saw those remains as some sort of smoking gun in his narrative. The Mismeasure of Man is in many ways Gould's most ideologically contaminated work, as he is going far out of his way to argue that there are no biological differences between human racial groups, and in doing so implicitly indicating that such biological differences could be differences of value - thus implicitly affirming the very ideological presumptions that he is attempting to disavow; i.e., that differences in "IQ" actually **would** amount to differences in worth or value if they were real, and therefore they **cannot** be real... etc etc So Gould's attack on Chardin was really an attack on the idea that evolution is purposive, because such purposiveness could be taken to imply that some creature - or human beings - are more or less "evolved" than others; a possibility which he saw as politically dangerous, thus leading him to believe that our interpretation of life itself must be calibrated in such a way as to prevent such possible interpretations. It's a very myopic and upside down way of looking at the issues, imo.
Its all about Dragons looking for answers without understanding the Dragons is like looking for the ingriedients of jelly without knowing it is made from cows feet.... would you ever think of looking there ?
Thank you for the very clear explanation of the subject of the Omega Point. Indeed, McKenna was very much riffing off of these concepts and playing fast and loose with them, resulting in his personal theoretical Waterloo of the Time Wave. A danger of Congresent thinking is the anticipation of an actual end point in time, when the Platonic Archetype existing on the Causal Plane exists outside of time and is not a final form in and of itself, as it is a concept seeking forms of expression. The seeking will continue infinitely, perhaps. I am reminded of Nicola Tesla stating he would build his inventions first in his mind and dreams, test them there, and then build them in reality. One could say he first built his inventions on the Causal Plane and that all of us do so, yet we are not actively aware we do. Such Causal machines then sit there as Attractors to the concept of that particular form. Hence also ideas happening to multiple people across the globe at once (with only one patenting the idea first). This ties in with the concept of the Akashic Records, where invention built and yet to be built reside. Because this is conceptual, you can approach that idea as conceptual or literal as you like. A thought that crosses my mind now is: were the signs of the Zodiac possibly originally such archetypical forms / attractors of form / points of congressence? The blending of gods and zodiac signs in different cultures is an important hint to this being the case. Seen in altered states of consciousness by our ancient ancestors and drawn down onto stone and paper, to become a calendar of morphogenic expectation.
The zodiac is something which I really still haven't figured out yet. It seems to me that the best way to make sense of the zodiac is by regarding each sign as an elemental valence of a given planetary archetypes (e.g., virgo is mercury/earth while gemini is mercury/air, etc etc) but that still leaves many questions; why is there no zodiac sign corresponding to mercury/fire, for example? It seems as though there is some sort of logic at play that goes beyond what I've managed to develop thus far. Arthur Young tackles the topic in his Geometry of Meaning, but I don't feel that his analysis really gets to the core of the significations which are being denoted by the zodiac, even if the zodiac does display the geometrical symmetries which he identifies.
I have this app, Planetary Times, which has all of the major Astrological systems giving your current state of being. This is about 20 systems all saying different kinds of things - not contradicting but complementing. You could see it as a 20-wheeled clock like an analogue tide calculator or a 20-node algorithm stack. But I think that ultimately we are applying the wrong model to the observation of astrological effects. It is not linear causal astronomical movement but more something like what Bioelectricity does in relation to the genes in our body, resulting in unique outcomes. Astrological time, then, becomes a Cosmic body in and of itself, in a way.
"A danger of Congresent thinking is the anticipation of an actual end point in time, when the Platonic Archetype existing on the Causal Plane exists outside of time and is not a final form in and of itself, as it is a concept seeking forms of expression." Seriously ?
@@Eris123451 As Plato said: The right question is usually more important than the right answer. In this case, however, my answer is as devisive as your question is: Yes.
43:45 maybe Brahman is a "Boltzman Brain". Not in the literal sense but in the conceptual sense. a single Unity of all Consciousness by definition would be utterly alone, utterly alienated from everything else that is not it because it is everything. And so Brahma goes to sleep, he dreams, he divides himself, a universe is born lives at its life and dies and he awakes to find himself again. And upon realizing what he is goes to sleep again Alan Watts simplifies it in the sense of asking people to imagine a fantasy in which they could do whatever they want, and quickly coming to the realization that they will be bored with ultimate power and will gradually reduce their power until they were entirely powerless to gain new experiences. Undivided Divinity cannot truly experience certain things, as paradoxical as this may seem. Whether you conceive of it as going from big bang to stellar structures to heat death and ultimate alienation back to big crunch. Or in terms of the Greek Metallic ages. Or of course the Vedic Cycle of the Yugas (and as to why time is constantly accelerating, to put it in very modern terms, one could imagine how they're Focus becomes ever more narrow and their heart rate increases as they play a video game over and over again on ever-increasing difficulty, becoming ever more attached to the small group of tasks that allow them to overcome the adversity.) The overall structure is similar. the nothing, the void, gives birth to the one. the one divides itself into the Primal polarity. the Primal polarity come together to create the trinity, which is to say causality. and from that you get The Ten Thousand things, or in other words everything. Entropy, the catabolic processes, are both the processes through which that life cycle plays out and also How the Universe finally disassembled itself back into the unitary consciousness. by going to the extreme of alienation, of every part separated from itself you eventually return to the unity. We have a thousand and one ways of describing this because our language is ultimately limited and can only nibble around the edges, but on a deep intuitive level I think we understand, or at least used to understand exactly what was going on here. it is reflected on the largest structures to the smallest structures. And the life cycle of galaxies to the life cycle of people and cells and everything in between. In this sense to encapsulates all the moralities, both the entirely dualistic and the non-dualistic and every gradient in between. they are all simultaneously true and incorrect at the same time. not because they are definitively false but because they describe one aspect of the whole. It is not a question of Parmenides or Heraclitis, but a Permenides and Heraclitus. It is a single unchanging Crystal Block filled with swirling vortices, and it is a single raging Vortex seeded with infinite little crystals. It is always departing from itself and returning to itself and departing immediately again once it realizes what it is. Man falls from the Garden and returns to Heaven. The hero departs the Divine Source in his Iliad, and returns home in his Odyssey. You breathe out and expand, you breathe in and contract. Is nothing happening, or is everything happening? I have no idea (of course in a way even this is not really an answer, because it merely pushes back the question. what is the context then in which the unified Consciousness comes into being, or even the context for the existence of the void? is it not just another bubble in the sea of infinite bubbles? But this is also a hard limit of language, logic, reasoning itself. the answer may be so simple and intuitive but words cannot grasp it)
The most unselfish act possible by any being. To share the gift that is itself, with "not" itself, the gift of the other, the gift of selfhood, the gift of freewill, the gift of infinity, the gift of eternity, the gift of love. The ultimate game, with every possible reward and punishment in store.
Wonderful data material my kin of Gaia I must say, I too enjoy researching our perhaps fragmented existence as the human race so to speak. Seeing as humanity is in it's infancy to the Universal scalar perspective of existence since as above so below we are part of this potential stardust crusade seeing as we are all made of stardust just the same as mother Gaia and father Chaos are on a basic level. We are like the bacteria inside our vessels or a better analogy is we are the who's in whoville to Horton in Universal proportions as within so without, evolution is actually simply the act of becoming through the timestream instant by instant point to point in a upward spiral as powered by Chaos which tests the becoming change as survival of the fittest in nature or might makes right for old human terms when mankind were still animals and not entitled to somehow be above being animals ourselves in modern society of course you'll find that disturbing fact. Chaos I believe is indifferent neither good nor evil but a all charming coercive yet all connecting contamination which corruption is a resulting phenomenon similar to controlling entropy of the Universe inhabitants people for instance to create not only the entropic force of the human race for the manifestation of inflation, from the increased disorder Entropy causes from humanity overall as fragments of Primal Chaos ourselves. To which we must communicate with the Universal Primeval Chaos of which we are all part of it's web that links Quantum to us all one as Primordial Khaos which is all of time space existence non-existence think Multivurse infinite in space time plus Spacetime due to the Temporal nature of time resulting in what i refer to as the Infinitum Omnivurse which all is presented. Hence the potential origin of the big bang resulting from Primordial Khaos aka to my path in existence in this world plagued by opposing forces of Yin and Yang to others is simply the Dao Tao or Khaos&Ymir to we lol
I have not read Meyer's books, but I was of the understanding that Meyer is more of a super-naturalist theist; i.e. one who believes that God is a human-like intelligence which exists outside of the world and whose creative activity involves his intervention and direct manipulation of the natural world. If so, then I think that the process-theology of Chardin and Whitehead contrasts rather drastically from that view in a number of ways. For something closer to what I take Chardin (et al) to be implying, I would recommend the works of Catherine Keller or John Cobb. Though ofc I may be misrepresenting Meyer. I'm only familiar with him tangentially from the days of evolution vs creationism debates.
Generally I am extremely skeptical of transhumanism, for two primary reasons; 1) Transhumanist ideas tend to rely upon a kind of techno-utopian conception of "progress" which itself relies on an ontological conflation of organismic and mechanistic processes; i.e., living systems are complex, squishy machines, and if we just got reeeaaaally good at making machines, we could begin augmenting living systems - such as human bodies - in a manner that could allow for things like amplified cognitive faculties, life extension, etc. I think there is a fundamental mistake here, in that organisms are fundamentally autopoietic/sympoietic systems, while machines are allopoietic, deterministic systems. A heart - for example - is not simply a very complex pump made of tiny molecular machines. It is a fully self-integrated and self-referential life-system. Something that cannot and will not ever roll of of an assembly line. This is the exact same kind of mechanistic thinking which has resulted in the modern pharmaceutical/psychotherapy industry becoming an abject failure. 2) Transhumanism relies ideologically on what I call "hyper-liberal anti-morality"; the idea that the liberation of the human ego from its moral, social and ultimately biological constraints is the objective of "social progress". This is exactly the kind of thinking which has resulted in what is often termed the "meaning crisis" and all of the malignancies which result from it; epidemics of alienation, loneliness, suicide, addiction... "freedom" - let alone freedom from the biological body - does not and will not allow human beings to be happy. Duty to others and moral purpose are what makes people "happy", and the more we get that particular issue twisted, the worse modern society will continue to become. And while I'm on a rant; Transhumanists also like to entertain the fantasy that the human mind is akin to a computer which can somehow be "upgraded". Assuming this idea ever gets off of the ground in any real capacity, I suspect it will prove to be one of the single most catastrophic disasters in the history of natural science since the creation of nuclear weapons. Be careful what you wish for. There are a great many forms of Hell which reside within our power fantasies.
@@Formscapes I really appreciate The effort in your response. I'm on the same page with you and I find it very disturbing. Oddly enough I just watched your angels egg video and it seems pretty germain. I can almost see the technological singularity goal as like a left hand path to the Omega point
How you can probe that you have a soul?, Could I interview one?, There's a instrument to demonstrate the existence of this concepts?, I only have your word as evidence?
If those are the questions you are asking then you are using the word "soul" as though it is some sort of invisible, mystical goop because you don't understand the history of that concept and what it actually entails. If you understood what that word actually implies, then you would understand that asking for evidence of your soul is tantamount to asking for evidence that you have thoughts. I would recommend watching the video "the unfolding of wings" and any of the videos discussing Carl Jung and/or the Solar archetype.
There is a simplification of natural selection that is not quite right. Natural selection is not just random selection of random mutation, but the selection according to be able to reproduce more offspring. The selection is produce by combination of physical conditions, how much food, oxygen is available, temperatures, or the availability of certain niches. Carcinization is produce by different animal living in a very similar environment and filling the same niche. Eyes are the same. Optics requires certain features in a good lense, and those features end up being selected. In that sense is more likely that human are only the first of a phenotype of environment modifying animal. As a scientist, I am skeptical of teleological explanations because these tend easily to ad-hoc stories, that just hide happenstance or a more complex phenomena. If a rock fall in front of you, should you ascribe final reason? Should be related to my present? Divine message? Jungian synchronicity? Or it just fall at that moment? I would say the latter. The chains of causality are too chaotic or complex to start inventing stories. However there is some teleology in sciences, in the form of equations of motion. These are not just a mechanical force. It is a fundamental symmetry of the Universe. When you learn about the principle of least action you understand that interaction follow a form that define the path before hand. The transition from quantum mechanics to classical mechanics can be understand as particle doing anything, but final trajectory tends to the least action. Once you understand the physics of a system all their evolution is defined. About Teilhard De Chardin, I like his ideas. There are not scientific for sure, but it is an attempt to solve the question: Why? Why everything? This question is metaphysical and in my opinion is a good answer. I don't think is completely correct. But our Universe started just too orderly, too low entropy.
> but the selection according to be able to reproduce more offspring I am very aware of that. This video is about Teilhard, not a 101 intro to neo-darwinism
@@Formscapes Thanks for the response. I believe it is relevant for the argument of finality in evolution. Most materialist will reject this as smell to creationism. I believe that given certain physical condition, certain type of life is expected. Again nobody knows why this is the case. Probably we need a new law of nature regarding complexity increase.
Incredible, covering vast ground. We circle about the path into a method. Edit; and then I found out about the deep loathing this guy has for trans people. Amazing how someone astute in some areas can be completely nonsensical when it comes to other people. Judge not
Hahah. So you’re just an ideal log who will throw out an entire channel because of some stupid new ideology that is damaging kids by the way, look at the papers that are coming out. It’s irrefutable people doing this stuff are monsters
This channel is absolute gem
"We are not human beings who have a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings who have a human experience." (QUOTE: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin)
I’m only 4.5 minutes into the video (30 minutes in of notes and thoughts) and just blown away by how profound the information is. I’m in a stage of questioning and seeking beyond our accepted narratives of the modern world. Both scientific and spiritual. This video gives deep insight into how the two became separated in the first place. I feel it’s going to take me a while to digest all of this but man what a great listen.
Studying these topics can be overwhelming especially when you’re self taught. This wide angle view helps tremendously!
The Phenomenon of Man was an incredible revelation to me when I discovered and read it. You have to really work to wrap your mind around De Chardin's concepts. But when you begin to put it together you can
never look at the universe and out place in it in the same way. This presentation does a great job of introducing De Chardin to the uninitiated. I could watch this fifty times and still glean new insights from it.
I too am in a similar situation ❤ I wrote a book 20 years ago about the teleological manifestation of the whole universe “The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God” -where “god” is this force which works beyond time and space like meaning does In consciousness as you read words like these. I also show how the universe is a novel or a textbook of symbols we are to learn from and read in order to connect with this creative force. So you can imagine how much I liked this video! 😂👍🏻 I am currently living in my car… have been for the last 4 years partly because of Cornoavirus, but also to liberate time so I can finish my magnum opus where I read the human body structure and the flora and fauna of the Earth-to show what they are as literary devices and symbols as well as practical organisms. Anyway, I’m going to subscribe. Just wanted to say hi friend! ❤
I read it years ago and almost all that I can still remember about is that I thought it was complete and utter bunk from start to finish.
I'm an atheist; but for those people who like to believe in god he did try to offer them a spurious rational for their irrational belief.
@@Eris123451 You must be an extremely left brain thinker. Try doing some art.
@@Eris123451well that was pretentious, unsurprising coming from an atheist though😂
Thanks for making this. You teach well - concise and informative. Keep on keeping on!
Wow this is amazing. I’m an autodidact so videos like this are extremely helpful. Thank you for this.
I'm an auto as well. No college degree at all.
@@Formscapes that’s really inspiring tbh. I’m a high school drop out, just hated the education system. But always excelled on my own. Amazing to see you producing content like this. I plan to do the same but in a different area. Currently have a fitness channel but planning on starting philosophy and esotericism. Very motivating to see such knowledge and articulation here. Hope to find my own version!
@@BrendanTietz Best of luck to you! I'm somewhat well versed in Anthroposophy, ancient astrology and Kabbalah, so I might be of some use with esotericism, even though it isn't my realm of expertise per-se. I dropped out of high school when I was 16 it was a miracle that I even made it that far lol. I did go to college for a few semesters (I lied about my HS diploma and evidently noone ever checked), and that was a much better experience than HS but it still wasn't my cup of tea. I'm extremely adhd so I can't just sit and a read a single book cover to cover unless I am just completely enthralled by it, so I will buy like 5 books and read a bit of them at a time until I finish them all over the course of like 6 months. It works for me but not for academic deadlines. C'est la Vie. Also I could probably benefit from your fitness stuff. I'm sick of being a shrimp lmfao
agi will be mans last invention
Of all the channels I watch on UA-cam, this is the one that inspires me to do the most additional research. Thank you!
His theories and ideas are fascinating to say the least. It is amazing to read this man's thinking.
Yeah, I don't necessarily think Chardin was 100% correct in the details, but I think his ideas are indispensable nonetheless. He goes far beyond where most philosophers and scientists of his age were willing to go, and his feel for the sheer profundity of existence itself is breathtaking.
agi will be mans last invention
@@mistycloud4455agi is a meme
Yes,A Gem of Channel.Thank You.🍂🦋🍁
what an amazing channel, so glad to be here. thanks fo sharing.
McKenna's mentioning was on the spot
i think some Michael Levin work also supports some of the what is described
also some of the description of slime molds use of their environment as a substrate to an outer preception system, thus being drawn toward an outer to itself advancement
Thanks! I'd really like to do some videos on biological cognition in things like fungi, embryology, colonial organisms, etc. I'm planning on doing a whole series on Philosophy of Biology (specifically with regards to Haraway, Varela and Bergson) eventually so maybe I'll be able to get into all that.
@Formscapes
i liked the view of some of social interaction related cognition that was a part of The Price of Altruism guy's research
This is completely awesome. Thank you so much! ❤
Thanks for watching!
Terence De Chardin... Wonderful Synthesis of Thought, Vision & Voice ☸
Excellent video, very glad to be here.
Glad to have ya here!
I've been wondering if there were channels as good as yours. I'm really glad to have found it.
🙏
Welcome aboard!
It’s great that you mentioned McKenna
He's gonna be coming up quite a bit in my next video. Stay tuned
Just found your channel and I’m hooked. Amazing. Subscribed ✅
Your channel rocks man. I love this stuff.
Excellent breakdown! de Chardin is an oldie but a goodie. I like your channel! (SUBSCRIBED)
Much appreciated!
agi will be mans last invention
Maybe the potential universe is infinite but the actual expressed universe is finite and evolving towards infinite. To this journey there is no possible end.
Thank you so much
Great video! Its truly remarkable that the foundations for things like radio waves and telecommunication over thousands of miles of distance actually exist in physics, almost as if the noosphere was pre-planned in some way. Of course its alot of speculation but certainly interesting to think about.
There's this other UA-camr guy who I've been watching recently who spoke about a psychedelic experience he had in which he saw what he believed to be the future; he said it was like a titanic, transforming, "living" cathedral so large that it could contain galaxies... is that what this whole universe is about. Creating that?
Wild though for sure
Thank you. This was fantastic.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Evolution being "random," had always bothered my intuition. But that is also because I have a weird uneasy feeling about the concept of randomness more generally. The modern information theoretic use of randomness feels unsatisfactory and maybe even contradictory.
Edit: I'm curious about the statement regarding McKenna's ideas, "pulls time itself towards its realization." I think a lot about time, so I'm trying to see if this fits.
Some (Including Chris Langan and Arthur M Young) have argued that "randomness" is actually an inherently incoherent concept, bc any state of reality must somehow be distinguished from its converse, and the very idea of "random" implies that there is no such distinction.
McKenna was basically just riffing on Chardin when he said that, though "transcendental object at the end of history" definitely has a ring of profundity to it. As for "pulling things through time", McKenna was referring to Whitehead (specifically Whitehead's notion of "concrescence"), though McKenna also gets a number of things wrong about Whitehead.
If you're interested in ideas like concrescence (etc) then I'd recommend checking out my friend Matt Segall's channel. He's UA-cam's resident expert;
www.youtube.com/@Footnotes2Plato
@@Formscapes I swear I responded to this, then it disappeared and now I can't remember. I'll check out what Langan says. Thanks for the reference.
Things seem random to us before we see the bigger picture
@@ricochetsixtyten I agree. I've often thought, that in the largest contextual frame (whatever that is) there is no randomness.
Thanks for this.
I was waiting for the Terrance McKenna reference! Dude is a fan of concrescence. Next bingo square is the phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”…
McKenna is dope but don't listen to him when he tries to explain Whitehead. There's a video on YT where he explains the meaning of concrescence and it's veeeery not accurate lol
The best explanation of the Omega Point I’ve heard. I think we may be shortsighted and indeed at a loss in assuming what anything is like from the perspective of undifferentiated consciousness, but Gebser points us there in sighting the work of Aurobindo and Advaita in the preface to Ever-present Origin (an insight from a thinker I would’ve never considered if it weren’t for this channels elucidating coverage of Gebser work).
Gold.
I would love a video more focused on how Teilhard de'Chardin's views mesh with Whitehead's. The last section of this video where you spoke of this "end point" of unity not existing in some idealized future, but continually being renewed in the present was incredibly poignant.
I studied Pierre de Chardin mais to say the truth I have difficulties understanding him, his concepts are not easy to grasp. Thanks for this explanation
Thanks!
Você é brasileiro?
You should do a video on Russian cosmism and how it's affected the transhumanism movements. It has similar ideas mentioned and one of the member of the cosmist that helped develop the idea of the noosphere: Vladimir Vernadsky. Definitely an interesting aspect of occulted wisdom in how it manifested in Russia.
Hegel’s Sublation explains the “grand dissolution/unification” I think. To sublate meaning to dissolve/destroy and to preserve and elevate. I also believe that Hegel’s treatment of time is useful for this discussion, specifically the idea of Absolute Recoil. I would love to see you do a video on Hegel’s Science of Logic in particular.
If I ever manage to get this rolling as a full-time gig then I'll definitely get around to doing some stuff on Hegel. I have a pretty decent understanding of Hegel's core ideas, but I would really need to actually work through The Science of Logic over the course of a couple months before trying to make a video about it.
Right now I've got a full time Job and 8 other books sitting in front of me that I need to finish, so I really just don't have time right now, unfortunately.
I will, however, absolutely be doing some stuff covering Goethe and Heidegger, both of whom I've spoken about quite a bit already.
@@Formscapes excellent quality videos considering how busy you are and only doing it part time! Take your time and thank you for the work you’re doing. Excited to see the growth
I mention in the video the claim that Human neurophysiology may be very close to ideal, and thus that we are unlikely to develop even larger brains in the future. This is an article which supports this conjecture, for anyone who may be interested in looking into that further:
phys.org/news/2015-07-human-brain-ideal.html
In my opinion, the focus on human neurophysiology lacks a great deal of imagination - as such, and even more so in this day and age, when we are all witnessing the current rise of AI systems that were unimaginable just a few years ago. We are not our brains alone. And we've been building brain extensions for decades. And anyone who is even new to using psychedelic substances soon learns that our minds are capable of seeing and feeling the world from completely different angles and perspectives.
Shouldn't we have learned by now that whenever anyone thought human development was somehow complete, they were miles off the mark?
Captivated by your work. As a chemist in training, the teleological basis of knowing really fills my subjective and objective appetite for knowing and feeling more. Would be interested in having these sorts of conversations. If you mind me asking, what is your background. I imagine it is in philosophy, but if striking a dialogue were possible, it would be most dazzling. Thank you
@@joechip4822 Well I didn't say that human development is complete. In fact I think that I heavily implied the contrary in the video. Nor did I say that human consciousness is reducible to brain activity. What I said was that human neurophysiology may be very close to optimal, and thus that we probably wouldn't expect to develop brains that are larger in the future.
@@UmbraHand I don't have any academic background. I'm an autodidact. You can email me ofc, and I could send you my discord info if you want. Thanks for watching my stuff though. Much appreciated.
You seem more Western focused, but I'm curious if you ever dived into Sri Aurobindo? As I understand, he, Chardin, and Gebser stumbled upon evolution of consciousness notions around the same time. I've been reading Aurobindo for years, and the depth is unending.
If the primary sources are impenetrable, there's a particular interesting book called "The Seven Quartets of Becoming" placing him in a context of Nietzche and Delueze, describing his yogic process as a kind of revaluation of values and "body without organs" intentional reconstitution of the human consciousness. In the case of Sri Aurobindo however, the teological principle of evolution is explicitly utilized (Shakti) to accelerate the individual and collective evolution towards what he calls "supermind". The teology here is the divine life manifested on Earth, with supermind being the "link" between absolute (Satchitananda) and the relative being (in my own limited capacity to articulate this).
I've read a bit of The Life Divine but haven't really delved into it enough to fully grapple with his overall system. I have some speculations about his ideas of Overmind and Supermind, but I don't really like to talk about anything on this channel unless I'm very confident that I can see the turning of the innermost gears, as it were, and understanding Aurobindo would require a rather dedicated study of not only his work, but also the whole of Indic philosophy in general so as to properly contextualize exactly what he's doing and why.
This is pretty much the exact same reason I've only mentioned Rudolf Steiner a few times here and there; I could talk about Steiner for hours, but until I can say exactly why and how I think he's right/wrong about the claims he's making, then I'm gonna wait, and there are just too many things that are still up in the air in that regard.
Even his intonation is a treat
loved it, great vid
thank you!
I feel another problem with the anthropic principle is that you're still left with a reality which contains the potenial for complex and intelligent life
That's a good point. We regard potentiality as something which is not in need of explanation, but potentiality is itself an immensely important topic. This somewhat relates to some ideas I've been working with in relation to the topic of "nothingness", taking influence from the Buddhist notion of "emptiness" as well as Schelling and Meister Eckhart's notion of the "abground" or "ungrund". We tend to conflate nothingness with "non-being", when in reality, nothingness is actually pure potentiality, which has a kind of qualitative structure in and of itself, and perhaps even a kind of primordial consciousness.
Oh i forgot i was supposed to share this.
Energy is the of passing-on of motion.
Energy is the transformation of form. Motion requires extensive continuation, which is ontologivally dependent upon, and thus subsequent to, mutation
This is so interesting
thank you!
16:21
Scuds, ghost anemones, Asteriids, snail furs, blue mussels ... In the 1950's Frederick Bang discovered special cells in horseshoe crab blood called ameobocytes.
referring to Dellez terms, i think the model he views as linear (or tree like) is more of Rhizome
Deleuze? I'm not sure if he ever had anything to say about Chardin, but he was a fan of both Bergson and Whitehead. I suppose you could say that the Whiteheadian revision of Chardin which I suggested would be more Rhizomatic than Arboreal.
@Formscapes
juice by formscapes
you spelled and worded the idea exactly
Omega point is poisson spot of every solar wavelength of light combined.. it is Trinity ..the omega wavelengh into a single point at it's center..
🤲
🌟
May all beings be safe and well.
💫💜💫
May there be peace in the higher regions; may there be peace in the firmament; may there be peace on earth.
May the waters flow peacefully; may the herbs and plants grow peacefully; may all the divine powers bring unto us peace. The supreme Lord is peace.
May we all be in peace, peace, and only peace; and may that peace come unto each of us.
#Om #Shanti Shanti Shanti! Peace! Peace! Peace!
(#Vedas, trans. Raimundo Panniker)
👁AHAM🌏BRAHMASMI🌕AUM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTI🌅🕉🤲
Another nitpicky comment (sorry): "telos" mean "end/purpose/completion", while the word for "cause" is "aitia" - hence aetiology.
Maybe you could add a visual note to correct it.
man idk where to start. everytime i listen i feel like im hearing things beyond me
No it’s all in you brother
I wonder what Professor Sapolsky of Stanford thinks about human carcinisation. The concept of Eros seems explained by the Prisoner's Dilemma. Cooperation gets you more advantage more consistently over longer periods of time. Perhaps the first eukaryotic microbe didn't decide to not eat the other microbe inside of it, or perhaps the microbe within simply mutated into the ability to not be eaten while inside. A passive parasite that evolved into a symbiosis, essentially domesticating the host organism while encouraging its growth. Single cell animal husbandry.
But while it might make sense to go from "I want to live so I will create offspring" to "I will not eat my offspring or others I recognize as almost the same as myself", how do you get to cooperation by like single cell organisms? The jump from normal reproduction to slime molds that all come together as individuals to create a giant multi-slime MOTHER SLIME for offspring creation seems like its missing a theoretical step.
Sapolsky is an "evolutionary psychologist".
Here is his whole bit;
He looks at data which seems to indicate a consistent feature of human behavior.
He concludes (with no real argument or evidence at all) that this feature is a universal feature of the human organism which is "programmed" into us by DNA sequences.
And then he literally just makes up a story about how natural selection came to select for genes which "programmed" us to be that way.
He is completely full of shit, as far as I am concerned.
About endosymbiotic theory;
I've always found it much more plausible that mitochondria began as parasites, rather than being the result of failed digestion of prey, as Margulis suggested.
The carnivorous explanation seems to retain a vestige of the "dog-eat-dog" understanding of evolution which has been central to capitalism-flavored neo-darwinism
28:25 is the best proof. the only actual hard evidence is the world we exist in, so consider what the accomplishment of its creation might be
exactly
What do you all think of Stephen J Goulds criticisms of Teilhard relating to the pekking man fraud? Any thoughts about about his participation or ignorance in the hoax and how it relates to his theory of a kind of directed spiritual evolution? I had to read Goulds Mismeasure of Man so im not suprised he had it out for Chardin in thr first place because the idea of a directed linear form of evolution was against Gould's presuppositions about evoltuion as a context dependent undirected process.
I don't see any reason to believe that Teilhard had any involvement in the hoax. He was only in China to begin with because the Jesuits were trying to keep him out of their hair and Teilhard barely mentions Peking man at all in The Phenomenon of Man, so it's not like he saw those remains as some sort of smoking gun in his narrative.
The Mismeasure of Man is in many ways Gould's most ideologically contaminated work, as he is going far out of his way to argue that there are no biological differences between human racial groups, and in doing so implicitly indicating that such biological differences could be differences of value - thus implicitly affirming the very ideological presumptions that he is attempting to disavow; i.e., that differences in "IQ" actually **would** amount to differences in worth or value if they were real, and therefore they **cannot** be real... etc etc
So Gould's attack on Chardin was really an attack on the idea that evolution is purposive, because such purposiveness could be taken to imply that some creature - or human beings - are more or less "evolved" than others; a possibility which he saw as politically dangerous, thus leading him to believe that our interpretation of life itself must be calibrated in such a way as to prevent such possible interpretations. It's a very myopic and upside down way of looking at the issues, imo.
Its all about Dragons looking for answers without understanding the Dragons is like looking for the ingriedients of jelly without knowing it is made from cows feet.... would you ever think of looking there ?
Thank you for the very clear explanation of the subject of the Omega Point. Indeed, McKenna was very much riffing off of these concepts and playing fast and loose with them, resulting in his personal theoretical Waterloo of the Time Wave. A danger of Congresent thinking is the anticipation of an actual end point in time, when the Platonic Archetype existing on the Causal Plane exists outside of time and is not a final form in and of itself, as it is a concept seeking forms of expression. The seeking will continue infinitely, perhaps. I am reminded of Nicola Tesla stating he would build his inventions first in his mind and dreams, test them there, and then build them in reality. One could say he first built his inventions on the Causal Plane and that all of us do so, yet we are not actively aware we do. Such Causal machines then sit there as Attractors to the concept of that particular form. Hence also ideas happening to multiple people across the globe at once (with only one patenting the idea first). This ties in with the concept of the Akashic Records, where invention built and yet to be built reside. Because this is conceptual, you can approach that idea as conceptual or literal as you like. A thought that crosses my mind now is: were the signs of the Zodiac possibly originally such archetypical forms / attractors of form / points of congressence? The blending of gods and zodiac signs in different cultures is an important hint to this being the case. Seen in altered states of consciousness by our ancient ancestors and drawn down onto stone and paper, to become a calendar of morphogenic expectation.
The zodiac is something which I really still haven't figured out yet. It seems to me that the best way to make sense of the zodiac is by regarding each sign as an elemental valence of a given planetary archetypes (e.g., virgo is mercury/earth while gemini is mercury/air, etc etc) but that still leaves many questions; why is there no zodiac sign corresponding to mercury/fire, for example? It seems as though there is some sort of logic at play that goes beyond what I've managed to develop thus far.
Arthur Young tackles the topic in his Geometry of Meaning, but I don't feel that his analysis really gets to the core of the significations which are being denoted by the zodiac, even if the zodiac does display the geometrical symmetries which he identifies.
I have this app, Planetary Times, which has all of the major Astrological systems giving your current state of being. This is about 20 systems all saying different kinds of things - not contradicting but complementing. You could see it as a 20-wheeled clock like an analogue tide calculator or a 20-node algorithm stack. But I think that ultimately we are applying the wrong model to the observation of astrological effects. It is not linear causal astronomical movement but more something like what Bioelectricity does in relation to the genes in our body, resulting in unique outcomes. Astrological time, then, becomes a Cosmic body in and of itself, in a way.
"A danger of Congresent thinking is the anticipation of an actual end point in time, when the Platonic Archetype existing on the Causal Plane exists outside of time and is not a final form in and of itself, as it is a concept seeking forms of expression."
Seriously ?
@@Eris123451 As Plato said: The right question is usually more important than the right answer. In this case, however, my answer is as devisive as your question is: Yes.
@@Eris123451 If you're trying to say something then say it. Noone knows what that "seriously" is supposed to imply
43:45 maybe Brahman is a "Boltzman Brain". Not in the literal sense but in the conceptual sense. a single Unity of all Consciousness by definition would be utterly alone, utterly alienated from everything else that is not it because it is everything. And so Brahma goes to sleep, he dreams, he divides himself, a universe is born lives at its life and dies and he awakes to find himself again. And upon realizing what he is goes to sleep again
Alan Watts simplifies it in the sense of asking people to imagine a fantasy in which they could do whatever they want, and quickly coming to the realization that they will be bored with ultimate power and will gradually reduce their power until they were entirely powerless to gain new experiences. Undivided Divinity cannot truly experience certain things, as paradoxical as this may seem.
Whether you conceive of it as going from big bang to stellar structures to heat death and ultimate alienation back to big crunch. Or in terms of the Greek Metallic ages. Or of course the Vedic Cycle of the Yugas (and as to why time is constantly accelerating, to put it in very modern terms, one could imagine how they're Focus becomes ever more narrow and their heart rate increases as they play a video game over and over again on ever-increasing difficulty, becoming ever more attached to the small group of tasks that allow them to overcome the adversity.)
The overall structure is similar. the nothing, the void, gives birth to the one. the one divides itself into the Primal polarity. the Primal polarity come together to create the trinity, which is to say causality. and from that you get The Ten Thousand things, or in other words everything.
Entropy, the catabolic processes, are both the processes through which that life cycle plays out and also How the Universe finally disassembled itself back into the unitary consciousness. by going to the extreme of alienation, of every part separated from itself you eventually return to the unity.
We have a thousand and one ways of describing this because our language is ultimately limited and can only nibble around the edges, but on a deep intuitive level I think we understand, or at least used to understand exactly what was going on here. it is reflected on the largest structures to the smallest structures. And the life cycle of galaxies to the life cycle of people and cells and everything in between.
In this sense to encapsulates all the moralities, both the entirely dualistic and the non-dualistic and every gradient in between. they are all simultaneously true and incorrect at the same time. not because they are definitively false but because they describe one aspect of the whole.
It is not a question of Parmenides or Heraclitis, but a Permenides and Heraclitus. It is a single unchanging Crystal Block filled with swirling vortices, and it is a single raging Vortex seeded with infinite little crystals.
It is always departing from itself and returning to itself and departing immediately again once it realizes what it is. Man falls from the Garden and returns to Heaven. The hero departs the Divine Source in his Iliad, and returns home in his Odyssey. You breathe out and expand, you breathe in and contract.
Is nothing happening, or is everything happening? I have no idea
(of course in a way even this is not really an answer, because it merely pushes back the question. what is the context then in which the unified Consciousness comes into being, or even the context for the existence of the void? is it not just another bubble in the sea of infinite bubbles? But this is also a hard limit of language, logic, reasoning itself. the answer may be so simple and intuitive but words cannot grasp it)
Divided for loves sake.!. For the possibility of reunion.
The most unselfish act possible by any being. To share the gift that is itself, with "not" itself, the gift of the other, the gift of selfhood, the gift of freewill, the gift of infinity, the gift of eternity, the gift of love. The ultimate game, with every possible reward and punishment in store.
is it Errors Tattler or Error Stotle? did not get the name right. maybe it's wAR IS TOTAL :)
💎💎
Wonderful data material my kin of Gaia I must say, I too enjoy researching our perhaps fragmented existence as the human race so to speak. Seeing as humanity is in it's infancy to the Universal scalar perspective of existence since as above so below we are part of this potential stardust crusade seeing as we are all made of stardust just the same as mother Gaia and father Chaos are on a basic level. We are like the bacteria inside our vessels or a better analogy is we are the who's in whoville to Horton in Universal proportions as within so without, evolution is actually simply the act of becoming through the timestream instant by instant point to point in a upward spiral as powered by Chaos which tests the becoming change as survival of the fittest in nature or might makes right for old human terms when mankind were still animals and not entitled to somehow be above being animals ourselves in modern society of course you'll find that disturbing fact. Chaos I believe is indifferent neither good nor evil but a all charming coercive yet all connecting contamination which corruption is a resulting phenomenon similar to controlling entropy of the Universe inhabitants people for instance to create not only the entropic force of the human race for the manifestation of inflation, from the increased disorder Entropy causes from humanity overall as fragments of Primal Chaos ourselves. To which we must communicate with the Universal Primeval Chaos of which we are all part of it's web that links Quantum to us all one as Primordial Khaos which is all of time space existence non-existence think Multivurse infinite in space time plus Spacetime due to the Temporal nature of time resulting in what i refer to as the Infinitum Omnivurse which all is presented. Hence the potential origin of the big bang resulting from Primordial Khaos aka to my path in existence in this world plagued by opposing forces of Yin and Yang to others is simply the Dao Tao or Khaos&Ymir to we lol
Do you think we're heading to a world government? And how so?
Read Blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose ☦️
He's on the list already 😎
Well presented…thank you. See: Return of the God Hypothesis by Dr. Stephen Meyer for a complimentary theoretical perspective.
I have not read Meyer's books, but I was of the understanding that Meyer is more of a super-naturalist theist; i.e. one who believes that God is a human-like intelligence which exists outside of the world and whose creative activity involves his intervention and direct manipulation of the natural world.
If so, then I think that the process-theology of Chardin and Whitehead contrasts rather drastically from that view in a number of ways. For something closer to what I take Chardin (et al) to be implying, I would recommend the works of Catherine Keller or John Cobb.
Though ofc I may be misrepresenting Meyer. I'm only familiar with him tangentially from the days of evolution vs creationism debates.
I'm trying to tile this together with the transhumanist agenda. I often resist the urge to think dialectically it feels like I'm walking into a trap
Generally I am extremely skeptical of transhumanism, for two primary reasons;
1) Transhumanist ideas tend to rely upon a kind of techno-utopian conception of "progress" which itself relies on an ontological conflation of organismic and mechanistic processes; i.e., living systems are complex, squishy machines, and if we just got reeeaaaally good at making machines, we could begin augmenting living systems - such as human bodies - in a manner that could allow for things like amplified cognitive faculties, life extension, etc.
I think there is a fundamental mistake here, in that organisms are fundamentally autopoietic/sympoietic systems, while machines are allopoietic, deterministic systems. A heart - for example - is not simply a very complex pump made of tiny molecular machines. It is a fully self-integrated and self-referential life-system. Something that cannot and will not ever roll of of an assembly line. This is the exact same kind of mechanistic thinking which has resulted in the modern pharmaceutical/psychotherapy industry becoming an abject failure.
2) Transhumanism relies ideologically on what I call "hyper-liberal anti-morality"; the idea that the liberation of the human ego from its moral, social and ultimately biological constraints is the objective of "social progress". This is exactly the kind of thinking which has resulted in what is often termed the "meaning crisis" and all of the malignancies which result from it; epidemics of alienation, loneliness, suicide, addiction... "freedom" - let alone freedom from the biological body - does not and will not allow human beings to be happy. Duty to others and moral purpose are what makes people "happy", and the more we get that particular issue twisted, the worse modern society will continue to become.
And while I'm on a rant; Transhumanists also like to entertain the fantasy that the human mind is akin to a computer which can somehow be "upgraded". Assuming this idea ever gets off of the ground in any real capacity, I suspect it will prove to be one of the single most catastrophic disasters in the history of natural science since the creation of nuclear weapons.
Be careful what you wish for. There are a great many forms of Hell which reside within our power fantasies.
@@Formscapes I really appreciate The effort in your response. I'm on the same page with you and I find it very disturbing. Oddly enough I just watched your angels egg video and it seems pretty germain. I can almost see the technological singularity goal as like a left hand path to the Omega point
How you can probe that you have a soul?, Could I interview one?, There's a instrument to demonstrate the existence of this concepts?, I only have your word as evidence?
If those are the questions you are asking then you are using the word "soul" as though it is some sort of invisible, mystical goop because you don't understand the history of that concept and what it actually entails.
If you understood what that word actually implies, then you would understand that asking for evidence of your soul is tantamount to asking for evidence that you have thoughts.
I would recommend watching the video "the unfolding of wings" and any of the videos discussing Carl Jung and/or the Solar archetype.
There is a simplification of natural selection that is not quite right. Natural selection is not just random selection of random mutation, but the selection according to be able to reproduce more offspring. The selection is produce by combination of physical conditions, how much food, oxygen is available, temperatures, or the availability of certain niches. Carcinization is produce by different animal living in a very similar environment and filling the same niche. Eyes are the same. Optics requires certain features in a good lense, and those features end up being selected. In that sense is more likely that human are only the first of a phenotype of environment modifying animal.
As a scientist, I am skeptical of teleological explanations because these tend easily to ad-hoc stories, that just hide happenstance or a more complex phenomena. If a rock fall in front of you, should you ascribe final reason? Should be related to my present? Divine message? Jungian synchronicity? Or it just fall at that moment? I would say the latter. The chains of causality are too chaotic or complex to start inventing stories. However there is some teleology in sciences, in the form of equations of motion. These are not just a mechanical force. It is a fundamental symmetry of the Universe. When you learn about the principle of least action you understand that interaction follow a form that define the path before hand. The transition from quantum mechanics to classical mechanics can be understand as particle doing anything, but final trajectory tends to the least action. Once you understand the physics of a system all their evolution is defined.
About Teilhard De Chardin, I like his ideas. There are not scientific for sure, but it is an attempt to solve the question: Why? Why everything? This question is metaphysical and in my opinion is a good answer. I don't think is completely correct. But our Universe started just too orderly, too low entropy.
> but the selection according to be able to reproduce more offspring
I am very aware of that. This video is about Teilhard, not a 101 intro to neo-darwinism
@@Formscapes Thanks for the response. I believe it is relevant for the argument of finality in evolution. Most materialist will reject this as smell to creationism. I believe that given certain physical condition, certain type of life is expected. Again nobody knows why this is the case. Probably we need a new law of nature regarding complexity increase.
28:30
Incredible, covering vast ground.
We circle about the path into a method. Edit; and then I found out about the deep loathing this guy has for trans people. Amazing how someone astute in some areas can be completely nonsensical when it comes to other people. Judge not
Hahah. So you’re just an ideal log who will throw out an entire channel because of some stupid new ideology that is damaging kids by the way, look at the papers that are coming out. It’s irrefutable people doing this stuff are monsters
4:57 - more like possessed by a demon