Its great to watch Sean ponder the myriad possibilities of metaphysics. Its a wonderful thing to be able to watch a face in the process of thought and its generous of Sean to allow us. It is the causal power of ma..tter as opposed to that of mind that, for me, tilts my belief ability in favour of it. However, Intuitlively, experientially I SENSE there is something other. . . .
A classically postmodern critique! Grand meta narritives, ultimate truths can no longer exist in our increasingly fragmented world of the mirror cracked!
I feel it’s helpful when you concluded with saying either way, materialism or all mind, we are speaking of the same reality. I am guilty of letting my own biases (in my case non-materialism) cloud my opinions on topics, always good to expose to alternative view points. Interested to see where this path will lead us, keep up the great videos 👍🏼
Yeah, thank you for highlighting that! I think you’re right; that might be the most important take away at this stage, just that opinions (of which ever sort) are finitely bound by their nature - which, if we can acknowledge this of our own opinions, we can hopefully remain fluid in our thinking. Legend. So happy to have you along for the ride 🙏
Haha! No thank you. Your comment has made my day. So happy for you to be a part of it. I will, at one point, do some live discussions or a discord type thing for everyone to share their own thoughts, but for now it’s just great having so many varied ideas to pull from in the comments, so always feel welcome to drop me a thought 🙏 glad you liked it.
Just happened upon your channel this evening and I want to say the music and color and images are all very enchanting. I wonder though: are you not familiar with the two truths as they are explained within Buddhism, and with the teachings of the Middle Way (Madhyamaka)? Because this view seems to be what you are presenting here, the middle way between the two extremes of materialism and idealism, which is the union of the relative and the absolute truth. From what you say in the video, connecting Brahman or God to Buddhism (actually these ideas are instead proper to Hinduism) -- my sense is that you may not have studied this view. Also, the idea that "everything is mind" can be found in Buddhism, but it's mainly presented as a provisional teaching as part of a pathway out of materialism, with more to come. Anyway, I think you might find the Middle Way immensely clarifying -- although on the other hand, you seem to have a lot of clarity already! Thanks again ...
I have actually read Nargarjuna, as well as a few other Buddhist texts (Bhagavad Gita being the most recent), so I’m actually very chuffed that you see a similarity. I definitely felt it when reading them for the first time. Reading Nargarjuna was a constant feeling of “hey, he sees it the same way I do!” Granted, I haven’t fully unfolded that in my chapters yet, but very keen to see how you feel about it as I continue. In fact there have been a few times whilst researching that I heard similar voices echoing similar thoughts back at me from across the ages (usually with a far more eloquent tongue mind you). But yes, the ultimate quality or truth fails to make sense once we start naming it, and I find that Idealists, who have come to their thinking as a reactionary response to the failures of materialism seem to miss this point. But I am by no means an expert, so I would love for you to keep sharing your knowledge as I continue to unfold my story! Thanks heaps for jumping on and giving up your time to say hi! Look forward to chatting again soon!
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley Wonderful, I'll continue commenting then. Btw the Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu rather than Buddhist text, which outlines the "four paths" of service, devotion, yoga (roughly), and knowledge. At it's most refined in the Advaita Vedanta tradition it is very similar to the "Mind Only" school found within tantric/Tibetan/Vajrayana Buddhism, which itself is a sort of sparing partner with the more logically exacting thought of Nagarjuna and later commentators (Chandrakirti, Asanga, Tsongkhapa). As you've said, one really runs into trouble if you try to come up with a coherent ontology on either the matter or mind side. You sort of have to thread the needle, not saying more than you can say, and being willing to bow down before and give proper place to the (nonconceptual or beyond just conceptual) infinite, even as you evoke it as well as possible with words.
Yes, neither idealism nor materialism. Both do fall short for reasons you've nicely outlined in this short video. It seems impossible to find a suitable name. The ground of being, the infinite, the ultimately real... None quite do the job. An apophatic approach, then, maybe...
Yes maybe! That’s a very interesting way to think about it. Though with the infinite being what it is, an approach of negation may hit the same hurdles as the more kataphatic approach. Concepts, and words in general, are always finite in nature aren’t they, and so seem incapable of these ultimate truths. Though maybe a shared positive/negative approach could prove useful. Like a pair of divining rods 😄 Or (in a crude sense) something like the “limit at infinity” concept used in calculus 🤷🏼♂️ where a higher and lower figure share in their descent towards some unattainable infinite irrational number… I suppose I image it to be a dual wholeness that is equally yin and yan, or in the language of physics, an infinite superposition of order and chaos, isness and nothingness. But again, words fail. But so glad you find what I’ve said to make some sense. So many folk seem hard nosed on either one side of the fence or the other… I was a little worried I was just going to offend everyone 😆
The material world is the shape of our reality, I take it as truth but not fundamental. Idealism gives me intellectual permission to be open for wonders in the material world. Ultimately fragmented or dissociated or ... ? Maybe it will show me, but it doesn't matter and I don't mind 😂.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure Whitehead has infiltrated my thinking to a degree too (though he’s not an easy read). Process theory was probably the first school of thought I came across that I really resonated with. I actually read him before reading any of the classics, though he did point me toward Heraclitus and Plato which was helpful. I probably lean into that same duel aspect neutral monism you mentioned, only with a nod towards Bohm’s wholeness or Spinoza’s infinite in terms of that “neutral” beyond. Thanks heaps for sharing 🙏
I agree. But a well-informed materialist should agree with you too. The observer is a necessary requirement to explicate (highlight, bring forward) the identity of any concept/object/event/scenario/environment that it experiences. Without subjectivity, all would be a homogenous, undefined whole. The leaf is only the leaf in experience. But does that mean that “All” is mind? That depends on what we mean by “Mind”. The identity of the things that we experience do, of course, exist within experience, just as you say - but the question that should now follow is: Is the quality of ‘experience’ the mind’s reaction to something, or is it just a happening that exists in-and-of-itself, independently, with no broader influence? In other words… Mind just is, and what it does happens non-causally. To attempt any answer, we must consider what the mind does from our perspective. Firstly, it synthesises concepts. The leaf is the leaf. The forest is the forest, and I am myself. We also recognise other individuals as having similar (but not identical) experiences. And again, they are themselves. (And I should point out here that in this case, we are forced to use the 3rd person understanding. Either they are other minds, or they are just us from a third-person perspective. Either way, we see them from a 3rd person view. So 3rd person views might be necessary.) Okay, so… multiple experiencers sharing access to the same concepts, albeit via private perspectives. So, as far as we can tell, those perspectives, our experience of self and our synthesised concepts ARE the categorical ‘Nature of Mind’ as seen from our perspective. This is what Mind does. So far, so good… but there is clearly some other quality of dynamics that is at play. This is the quality of “shared knowledge” and relation. Independently and/or unitedly, we can know the leaf, the environment and the other person as things in-and-of-themselves in relation to one another. These are the dynamics that Physics attempts to measure (Physics doesn’t declare what things are; it just measures how they, as concepts, interact). So, to say that the ‘Nature of Mind’ (as identified above) is synonymous with these further dynamics (i.e. to connect, relate and inform) is to attribute an entirely different set of qualities to Mind than what we first declared. So that, even if it is “Mind”, it’s not mind as we know it. So why should we synthesise these two concepts under the same name? I find that Kant had a good way of looking at this. It’s not that the physical world is as we experience it beyond experience. All we experience is experience! But the outside “Noumenal” world, as he called it, still nonetheless exists. We may not know what it is, but it’s there. We are of it, physics is of it, and mind is of it. But to say that Mind (and only mind) IS IT, is to say that we know what mind is beyond the first-person experience - which we don’t, nor can we. … What do you think - Yes, No, Maybe… huh? :)
Haha, yeah my wife had a similar response. It was the park ranger driving by. I could probably have removed it using software, but it happened - so I just went with it 😄 🚙 glad you enjoyed it though ❤️
Ah, thank you for that CC pick up, I’ll fix that … 👍 But, yeah, the “frame” 😄 That’ll be a big thing to untangle later on. The ontology of the frame, or “perspective”, that enables the emergence of finite truths. Are they inevitable, are they actual or are they abstract conceptions and so on. But def up the more curly end of considerations 😅 Though not too dissimilar to Bohm’s explicate order, or Whitehead’s actual entities. But definitely more of a loose, off the cuff video this one - what did you think?
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I liked it. I enjoy the chapters for the music and visuals, but the info exchange is the important part regardless of the presentation. (Not saying that you should drop the shiny bits 😁(I can only imagine the amount of work that is required)) Thanks again for making this available, really looking forward to seeing where we go from here.
Idk idealism feels more sensible given the idea that nothing exist with something experience it. And if you say no. Well then tell me how without imagining your self as a 3rd person experiencer
I agree. But a well-informed materialist should agree with you too. The observer is a necessary requirement to explicate (highlight, bring forward) the identity of any concept/object/event/scenario/environment that it experiences. Without subjectivity, all would be a homogenous, undefined whole. The leaf is only the leaf in experience. But does that mean that “All” is mind? That depends on what we mean by “Mind”. The identity of the things that we experience do, of course, exist within experience, just as you say - but the question that should now follow is: Is the quality of ‘experience’ the mind’s reaction to something, or is it just a happening that exists in-and-of-itself, independently, with no broader influence? In other words… Mind just is, and what it does happens non-causally. To attempt any answer, we must consider what the mind does from our perspective. Firstly, it synthesises concepts. The leaf is the leaf. The forest is the forest, and I am myself. We also recognise other individuals as having similar (but not identical) experiences. And again, they are themselves. (And I should point out here that in this case, we are forced to use the 3rd person understanding. Either they are other minds, or they are just us from a third-person perspective. Either way, we see them from a 3rd person view. So 3rd person views might be necessary.) Okay, so… multiple experiencers sharing access to the same concepts, albeit via private perspectives. So, as far as we can tell, those perspectives, our experience of self and our synthesised concepts ARE the categorical ‘Nature of Mind’ as seen from our perspective. This is what Mind does. So far, so good… but there is clearly some other quality of dynamics that is at play. This is the quality of “shared knowledge” and relation. Independently and/or unitedly, we can know the leaf, the environment and the other person as things in-and-of-themselves in relation to one another. These are the dynamics that Physics attempts to measure (Physics doesn’t declare what things are; it just measures how they, as concepts, interact). So, to say that the ‘Nature of Mind’ (as identified above) is synonymous with these further dynamics (i.e. to connect, relate and inform) is to attribute an entirely different set of qualities to Mind than what we first declared. So that, even if it is “Mind”, it’s not mind as we know it. So why should we synthesise these two concepts under the same name? I find that Kant had a good way of looking at this. It’s not that the physical world is as we experience it beyond experience. All we experience is experience! But the outside “Noumenal” world, as he called it, still nonetheless exists. We may not know what it is, but it’s there. We are of it, physics is of it, and mind is of it. But to say that Mind (and only mind) IS IT, is to say that we know what mind is beyond the first-person experience - which we don’t, nor can we. … What do you think - Yes, No, Maybe… huh? :)
All is mental; law one of the hermetic principles… Everything that happens, happens in our head, that’s why shit is so fucked up, our heads are a mess… If you knew the answer, what difference would it make to anyone but you? One thing is for sure, we ALL find out in the end… There’s either something or there’s nothing…
I’m only loosely familiar with Hermetic teaching but I am about to dive into some research on the interconnectedness of theologies so I’m sure it will be a focus at one point. But thanks for highlighting it. 🙏 I would agree (in one sense) that every-“thing” is fundamentally mind, as everything we experience (ie. the leaf as a leaf 🍁 ) is emergent within perspective, and so can only hold its identity within the perspective attained by mind. Yet, though every “thing’s” independent identity might be attributed to mind, saying “All” is mind, is (for me) too bold a statement. Mostly because we would then have to answer “what is mind?” My feeling is that if we can’t definitively say what mind is, then I don’t think we can claim its character to be ultimate in nature. In fact, I’m sceptical of any claims of ultimate quality as they all seem to contradict the principles of infinity & wholeness ie (boundless unity). Mind at first glance might seem perfectly aligned with this boundless-unity (ie multiple characters in one minds dream etc.) , yet once we attribute unique minds to individuals, ie free will, we appear to end up with a plurality of mind (assuming that the mind we are referring to is synonymous with experience). And so, in this way, mind appears to be the source of plurality, not the nature of wholeness of which it shares a oneness. It’s not seperate from the oneness (nothing is), though neither does its character define it. So in short, I don’t necessarily disagree, i just question the presumed “ultimate” quality Idealism attributes to mind. But I will pick this idea apart in greater detail across later chapters, so it’ll be great to get your input then too 🙏🙏🙏 Thanks for being so present and involved with all this Katy. It really makes this project worthwhile ❤️
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley My thing is that I don’t need to know everything, I’ll go a step further and say that, I don’t think we get to know everything in this realm and that’s completely dissatisfying… Honestly, I love these deep dives but my primary focus is how to be a good human. I’m the only thing in this realm I can change so I’ll do that. Thanks for entertaining my questions, sincerely appreciated!
@@KatyWantsToGo absolutely more than fair enough, if not honourable even. 🙏 I recall once when I did a heroic dose of psilocybin, and asked “the universe” (or the mushroom I guess), to show me infinity. I spent what felt like an eternity in a very unpleasant vortex where I felt like I was being ripped into one million pieces. It was only after I emerged that I thought… oh, I need to be dead and bereft of the body to understand that. 🤦🏻♂️ So I get what you mean. But at this time, it still feels right for me to be playing with these ideas, seeking higher understandings, even if they can never be ultimate. See how we go ey 😄 thanks again!
Say, “If the sea were to become ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would run out before the words of my Lord ran out, even if We were to bring the like of it in replenishment.” Quran 18:109 And were all the trees on earth pens, with the sea replenished by seven seas following it, never would the Words of Allah run out. Indeed, Allah is Almighty, All-Wise. Quran 31:27 Neither your creation nor your resurrection are but as that of a single soul. Indeed, Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. Quran 31:28 Indeed, His only command once He has desired anything is to say to it, “Be,” and so it is . Quran 36:82 So Highly Exalted is the One in Whose hand is the dominion of everything, and to Him you are returned . Quran. 36:83 And they ask you about the Spirit; say, “The Spirit is by the command of my Lord, and you were not given of knowledge but little.” Quran 17:85
Its great to watch Sean ponder the myriad possibilities of metaphysics. Its a wonderful thing to be able to watch a face in the process of thought and its generous of Sean to allow us. It is the causal power of ma..tter as opposed to that of mind that, for me, tilts my belief ability in favour of it. However, Intuitlively, experientially I SENSE there is something other. . . .
Very kind words. Thanks for being a part of it 🙏
A classically postmodern critique! Grand meta narritives, ultimate truths can no longer exist in our increasingly fragmented world of the mirror cracked!
I feel it’s helpful when you concluded with saying either way, materialism or all mind, we are speaking of the same reality. I am guilty of letting my own biases (in my case non-materialism) cloud my opinions on topics, always good to expose to alternative view points. Interested to see where this path will lead us, keep up the great videos 👍🏼
Yeah, thank you for highlighting that! I think you’re right; that might be the most important take away at this stage, just that opinions (of which ever sort) are finitely bound by their nature - which, if we can acknowledge this of our own opinions, we can hopefully remain fluid in our thinking. Legend.
So happy to have you along for the ride 🙏
BROOO IM GEEKIN SO HARD RIGHT NOW YOU JUST QUOTED ME. YOURE ON OF MY FAVORITE UA-camRS! Thank you!!
Haha! No thank you. Your comment has made my day. So happy for you to be a part of it.
I will, at one point, do some live discussions or a discord type thing for everyone to share their own thoughts, but for now it’s just great having so many varied ideas to pull from in the comments, so always feel welcome to drop me a thought 🙏 glad you liked it.
Just happened upon your channel this evening and I want to say the music and color and images are all very enchanting. I wonder though: are you not familiar with the two truths as they are explained within Buddhism, and with the teachings of the Middle Way (Madhyamaka)? Because this view seems to be what you are presenting here, the middle way between the two extremes of materialism and idealism, which is the union of the relative and the absolute truth. From what you say in the video, connecting Brahman or God to Buddhism (actually these ideas are instead proper to Hinduism) -- my sense is that you may not have studied this view. Also, the idea that "everything is mind" can be found in Buddhism, but it's mainly presented as a provisional teaching as part of a pathway out of materialism, with more to come. Anyway, I think you might find the Middle Way immensely clarifying -- although on the other hand, you seem to have a lot of clarity already! Thanks again ...
I have actually read Nargarjuna, as well as a few other Buddhist texts (Bhagavad Gita being the most recent), so I’m actually very chuffed that you see a similarity. I definitely felt it when reading them for the first time. Reading Nargarjuna was a constant feeling of “hey, he sees it the same way I do!” Granted, I haven’t fully unfolded that in my chapters yet, but very keen to see how you feel about it as I continue.
In fact there have been a few times whilst researching that I heard similar voices echoing similar thoughts back at me from across the ages (usually with a far more eloquent tongue mind you).
But yes, the ultimate quality or truth fails to make sense once we start naming it, and I find that Idealists, who have come to their thinking as a reactionary response to the failures of materialism seem to miss this point. But I am by no means an expert, so I would love for you to keep sharing your knowledge as I continue to unfold my story!
Thanks heaps for jumping on and giving up your time to say hi! Look forward to chatting again soon!
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley Wonderful, I'll continue commenting then. Btw the Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu rather than Buddhist text, which outlines the "four paths" of service, devotion, yoga (roughly), and knowledge. At it's most refined in the Advaita Vedanta tradition it is very similar to the "Mind Only" school found within tantric/Tibetan/Vajrayana Buddhism, which itself is a sort of sparing partner with the more logically exacting thought of Nagarjuna and later commentators (Chandrakirti, Asanga, Tsongkhapa).
As you've said, one really runs into trouble if you try to come up with a coherent ontology on either the matter or mind side. You sort of have to thread the needle, not saying more than you can say, and being willing to bow down before and give proper place to the (nonconceptual or beyond just conceptual) infinite, even as you evoke it as well as possible with words.
Yes, neither idealism nor materialism. Both do fall short for reasons you've nicely outlined in this short video. It seems impossible to find a suitable name. The ground of being, the infinite, the ultimately real... None quite do the job. An apophatic approach, then, maybe...
Yes maybe! That’s a very interesting way to think about it. Though with the infinite being what it is, an approach of negation may hit the same hurdles as the more kataphatic approach.
Concepts, and words in general, are always finite in nature aren’t they, and so seem incapable of these ultimate truths.
Though maybe a shared positive/negative approach could prove useful. Like a pair of divining rods 😄 Or (in a crude sense) something like the “limit at infinity” concept used in calculus 🤷🏼♂️ where a higher and lower figure share in their descent towards some unattainable infinite irrational number…
I suppose I image it to be a dual wholeness that is equally yin and yan, or in the language of physics, an infinite superposition of order and chaos, isness and nothingness. But again, words fail.
But so glad you find what I’ve said to make some sense. So many folk seem hard nosed on either one side of the fence or the other… I was a little worried I was just going to offend everyone 😆
The material world is the shape of our reality, I take it as truth but not fundamental. Idealism gives me intellectual permission to be open for wonders in the material world.
Ultimately fragmented or dissociated or ... ? Maybe it will show me, but it doesn't matter and I don't mind 😂.
Well said sir 🙏😆
I advocate for a pragmatic neutral monism, or a dualistic panpsychism like Alfred N. Whitehead seemingly discovered.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure Whitehead has infiltrated my thinking to a degree too (though he’s not an easy read). Process theory was probably the first school of thought I came across that I really resonated with. I actually read him before reading any of the classics, though he did point me toward Heraclitus and Plato which was helpful.
I probably lean into that same duel aspect neutral monism you mentioned, only with a nod towards Bohm’s wholeness or Spinoza’s infinite in terms of that “neutral” beyond. Thanks heaps for sharing 🙏
We can be sure of it requires an experiencer for anything matter. Without experience and perception what is anything. It’s nothing
I agree. But a well-informed materialist should agree with you too. The observer is a necessary requirement to explicate (highlight, bring forward) the identity of any concept/object/event/scenario/environment that it experiences. Without subjectivity, all would be a homogenous, undefined whole. The leaf is only the leaf in experience. But does that mean that “All” is mind? That depends on what we mean by “Mind”.
The identity of the things that we experience do, of course, exist within experience, just as you say - but the question that should now follow is:
Is the quality of ‘experience’ the mind’s reaction to something, or is it just a happening that exists in-and-of-itself, independently, with no broader influence? In other words… Mind just is, and what it does happens non-causally.
To attempt any answer, we must consider what the mind does from our perspective.
Firstly, it synthesises concepts. The leaf is the leaf. The forest is the forest, and I am myself. We also recognise other individuals as having similar (but not identical) experiences. And again, they are themselves. (And I should point out here that in this case, we are forced to use the 3rd person understanding. Either they are other minds, or they are just us from a third-person perspective. Either way, we see them from a 3rd person view. So 3rd person views might be necessary.)
Okay, so… multiple experiencers sharing access to the same concepts, albeit via private perspectives. So, as far as we can tell, those perspectives, our experience of self and our synthesised concepts ARE the categorical ‘Nature of Mind’ as seen from our perspective. This is what Mind does.
So far, so good… but there is clearly some other quality of dynamics that is at play. This is the quality of “shared knowledge” and relation. Independently and/or unitedly, we can know the leaf, the environment and the other person as things in-and-of-themselves in relation to one another. These are the dynamics that Physics attempts to measure (Physics doesn’t declare what things are; it just measures how they, as concepts, interact).
So, to say that the ‘Nature of Mind’ (as identified above) is synonymous with these further dynamics (i.e. to connect, relate and inform) is to attribute an entirely different set of qualities to Mind than what we first declared. So that, even if it is “Mind”, it’s not mind as we know it. So why should we synthesise these two concepts under the same name?
I find that Kant had a good way of looking at this.
It’s not that the physical world is as we experience it beyond experience. All we experience is experience! But the outside “Noumenal” world, as he called it, still nonetheless exists. We may not know what it is, but it’s there. We are of it, physics is of it, and mind is of it. But to say that Mind (and only mind) IS IT, is to say that we know what mind is beyond the first-person experience - which we don’t, nor can we.
… What do you think - Yes, No, Maybe… huh? :)
Great video, the audio tripped me out a little when that truck went by. Picked it up super clearly, thought it was behind me.
Haha, yeah my wife had a similar response. It was the park ranger driving by. I could probably have removed it using software, but it happened - so I just went with it 😄 🚙 glad you enjoyed it though ❤️
I KNEW IT
I'VE BEEN FRAMED!!!
btw
What's up with the captions at 11:02.
Ah, thank you for that CC pick up, I’ll fix that … 👍 But, yeah, the “frame” 😄
That’ll be a big thing to untangle later on. The ontology of the frame, or “perspective”, that enables the emergence of finite truths. Are they inevitable, are they actual or are they abstract conceptions and so on. But def up the more curly end of considerations 😅 Though not too dissimilar to Bohm’s explicate order, or Whitehead’s actual entities.
But definitely more of a loose, off the cuff video this one - what did you think?
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I liked it. I enjoy the chapters for the music and visuals, but the info exchange is the important part regardless of the presentation. (Not saying that you should drop the shiny bits 😁(I can only imagine the amount of work that is required)) Thanks again for making this available, really looking forward to seeing where we go from here.
It's Bernardo Kastrup, not Bruno. An understandable Freudian slip.
Yeah, I messed up Rupert Spiras name too 🤦🏻♂️ I guess that’s just what you get when flying without a script. 😄
Idk idealism feels more sensible given the idea that nothing exist with something experience it. And if you say no. Well then tell me how without imagining your self as a 3rd person experiencer
I agree. But a well-informed materialist should agree with you too. The observer is a necessary requirement to explicate (highlight, bring forward) the identity of any concept/object/event/scenario/environment that it experiences. Without subjectivity, all would be a homogenous, undefined whole. The leaf is only the leaf in experience. But does that mean that “All” is mind? That depends on what we mean by “Mind”.
The identity of the things that we experience do, of course, exist within experience, just as you say - but the question that should now follow is:
Is the quality of ‘experience’ the mind’s reaction to something, or is it just a happening that exists in-and-of-itself, independently, with no broader influence? In other words… Mind just is, and what it does happens non-causally.
To attempt any answer, we must consider what the mind does from our perspective.
Firstly, it synthesises concepts. The leaf is the leaf. The forest is the forest, and I am myself. We also recognise other individuals as having similar (but not identical) experiences. And again, they are themselves. (And I should point out here that in this case, we are forced to use the 3rd person understanding. Either they are other minds, or they are just us from a third-person perspective. Either way, we see them from a 3rd person view. So 3rd person views might be necessary.)
Okay, so… multiple experiencers sharing access to the same concepts, albeit via private perspectives. So, as far as we can tell, those perspectives, our experience of self and our synthesised concepts ARE the categorical ‘Nature of Mind’ as seen from our perspective. This is what Mind does.
So far, so good… but there is clearly some other quality of dynamics that is at play. This is the quality of “shared knowledge” and relation. Independently and/or unitedly, we can know the leaf, the environment and the other person as things in-and-of-themselves in relation to one another. These are the dynamics that Physics attempts to measure (Physics doesn’t declare what things are; it just measures how they, as concepts, interact).
So, to say that the ‘Nature of Mind’ (as identified above) is synonymous with these further dynamics (i.e. to connect, relate and inform) is to attribute an entirely different set of qualities to Mind than what we first declared. So that, even if it is “Mind”, it’s not mind as we know it. So why should we synthesise these two concepts under the same name?
I find that Kant had a good way of looking at this.
It’s not that the physical world is as we experience it beyond experience. All we experience is experience! But the outside “Noumenal” world, as he called it, still nonetheless exists. We may not know what it is, but it’s there. We are of it, physics is of it, and mind is of it. But to say that Mind (and only mind) IS IT, is to say that we know what mind is beyond the first-person experience - which we don’t, nor can we.
… What do you think - Yes, No, Maybe… huh? :)
All is mental; law one of the hermetic principles…
Everything that happens, happens in our head, that’s why shit is so fucked up, our heads are a mess…
If you knew the answer, what difference would it make to anyone but you?
One thing is for sure, we ALL find out in the end…
There’s either something or there’s nothing…
I’m only loosely familiar with Hermetic teaching but I am about to dive into some research on the interconnectedness of theologies so I’m sure it will be a focus at one point. But thanks for highlighting it. 🙏
I would agree (in one sense) that every-“thing” is fundamentally mind, as everything we experience (ie. the leaf as a leaf 🍁 ) is emergent within perspective, and so can only hold its identity within the perspective attained by mind.
Yet, though every “thing’s” independent identity might be attributed to mind, saying “All” is mind, is (for me) too bold a statement. Mostly because we would then have to answer “what is mind?”
My feeling is that if we can’t definitively say what mind is, then I don’t think we can claim its character to be ultimate in nature. In fact, I’m sceptical of any claims of ultimate quality as they all seem to contradict the principles of infinity & wholeness ie (boundless unity). Mind at first glance might seem perfectly aligned with this boundless-unity (ie multiple characters in one minds dream etc.) , yet once we attribute unique minds to individuals, ie free will, we appear to end up with a plurality of mind (assuming that the mind we are referring to is synonymous with experience). And so, in this way, mind appears to be the source of plurality, not the nature of wholeness of which it shares a oneness. It’s not seperate from the oneness (nothing is), though neither does its character define it.
So in short, I don’t necessarily disagree, i just question the presumed “ultimate” quality Idealism attributes to mind. But I will pick this idea apart in greater detail across later chapters, so it’ll be great to get your input then too
🙏🙏🙏
Thanks for being so present and involved with all this Katy. It really makes this project worthwhile ❤️
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley My thing is that I don’t need to know everything, I’ll go a step further and say that, I don’t think we get to know everything in this realm and that’s completely dissatisfying…
Honestly, I love these deep dives but my primary focus is how to be a good human. I’m the only thing in this realm I can change so I’ll do that.
Thanks for entertaining my questions, sincerely appreciated!
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I find the hermetic principals to be very useful in navigating this realm, I most highly recommend the principals…
@@KatyWantsToGo absolutely more than fair enough, if not honourable even. 🙏
I recall once when I did a heroic dose of psilocybin, and asked “the universe” (or the mushroom I guess), to show me infinity. I spent what felt like an eternity in a very unpleasant vortex where I felt like I was being ripped into one million pieces. It was only after I emerged that I thought… oh, I need to be dead and bereft of the body to understand that. 🤦🏻♂️
So I get what you mean. But at this time, it still feels right for me to be playing with these ideas, seeking higher understandings, even if they can never be ultimate. See how we go ey 😄 thanks again!
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley 😂Had a similar DMT experience…I am much more careful about what I ask and I ALWAYS respectfully request nothing clever…
Say, “If the sea were to become ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would run out before the words of my Lord ran out, even if We were to bring the like of it in replenishment.”
Quran 18:109
And were all the trees on earth pens, with the sea replenished by seven seas following it, never would the Words of Allah run out. Indeed, Allah is Almighty, All-Wise. Quran 31:27
Neither your creation nor your resurrection are but as that of a single soul. Indeed, Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. Quran 31:28
Indeed, His only command once He has desired anything is to say to it, “Be,” and so it is . Quran 36:82
So Highly Exalted is the One in Whose hand is the dominion of everything, and to Him you are returned .
Quran. 36:83
And they ask you about the Spirit; say, “The Spirit is by the command of my Lord, and you were not given of knowledge but little.”
Quran 17:85
Beautiful! Thanks for sharing 🙏🙏🙏