If time is circular then forms as markers for animistic flow would allow a tension between past and future accessed thru attention or a tension. A circuit is given permission by the voltage and the current is the oomph, and since the signal is the artistic medium as the juice of animism, the tools that shape the signal like resisters etc might be the equivalent of the forms. Dr Levin is repeating this on a different level than electronics, how cool.
Hi Matthew! I'm a big fan of both yourself and of magical Merlin. This is a bit of a tangent away from this video, perhaps, but I was just watching and listening to "Is Value fundamental to the cosmos? Iain McGilchrist in conversation with Zak Stein," also found on UA-cam. And at about an hour and 19 minutes in, or so the moderator, Jonathan Rowe, reads a comment and question from a live viewer, concerning some commentary by Whitehead on "moral order" and "aesthetic order". Whitehead's commentary on these topics really attracted my attention, since I've been attempting to re-conceptualize ethics in relation to aesthetics, and ontology in relation to epistemology, and each of these four in relation to all of the others -- finding the usual way of relating these abysmally dumb. Then I discovered that a book exists: An Outline of Whiteheadian Aesthetics and Beyond. Can you say a little about Whitehead and aesthetics? What's Whitehead up to here in a nut shell?
Thanks! Let me try to spell this out. Whitehead’s cosmology is an invitation to move beyond the modern bifurcation separating nature from culture, fact from value, and mechanism from meaning. This, of course, requires re-evaluating metaphysical assumptions that have been woven into the very fabric of the scientific worldview for hundreds of years. The originators of this worldview conceived the universe as a machine and imagined God as its transcendent designer. Though they differ in the details, this was the imaginative background informing the thoughts of Newton, Descartes, and Kant. Nowadays, scientific materialists no longer have any need for the “God hypothesis” as Laplace famously called it, but the imaginative background informing their ideas remains the same. The universe is still to be understood by analogy to a machine, only now it has become a purposeless machine. Understanding this cosmic machine requires purifying our perspective of any hint of emotion, value, or aesthetic appreciation, since these merely subjective qualities can only contaminate an impartial view of reality. Whitehead’s cosmological scheme provides an alternative. “The metaphysical doctrine, here expounded,” he writes in the final pages of 'Religion in the Making,' “finds the foundations of the world in the aesthetic experience, rather than-as with Kant [and many contemporary scientific materialists]-in the cognitive and conceptual experience. All order is therefore aesthetic order...The actual world is the outcome of the aesthetic order, and the aesthetic order is derived from the immanence of God.” ('Religion in the Making,' p. 91-92). Whitehead’s God is not a big boss in the sky who designs and determines everything, but the poet of the world-indeed, the tragic poet of the world-who through aesthetic sensitivity beckons all beings toward the highest beauty that is possible for them given the limitations of their finite situations. Beauty is the teleology of the universe. This, at least, is Whitehead's alternative cosmological interpretation of the facts and values entertained by human beings. I'd recommend the book 'Religion in the Making,' particularly the latter half, for more on this aesthetic perspective. See also the last part of 'Adventures of Ideas' on Truth and Beauty.
@@Footnotes2Plato - Very helpful, thank you! Then Whitehead's aesthetics utterly and completely inverts (and upends!) the status of aesthetics as I have recently described it, as the abandoned and neglected step-daughter among the ontological, epistemological (onto-epistemic) and the ethical, aesthetic (ethico-aesthetic)! [edited] This is fascinating! I'm very curious to know if arguments are provided for such an upending of the usual order of things, which -- as you know -- has been enduring much longer than the modern and contemporary epoch. I'm curious to know if arguments are even helpful! Maybe mystical experience is what is helpful? Was Whitehead basically a mystic? I'm a nature mystic myself, but one who has been trained up in modern / Western thought and who is trying to find my way in all of it. Much love, my brother! And thanks!
Sorry, I meant to type out "ethico-aesthetic" as the second pairing. My inquiry and research is an attempt to relate all four "quadrants" in a way which integrates all four (synthesis) rather than isolating them (analysis).
@@j.rivermartin3412 Whitehead certainly provides arguments. In my last book, I do a bit of argumentation, but really I'm attempting to follow through on the experiment of what human experience and the cosmos look and feel like if we take these premises seriously.
Around 45 min Tim is talking about the biochemistry of a person and how drugs affect etc and there's an answer that is quite profound and simple, where most people have a plugged nose to some degree, pretty much all their lives. "The answer was right under their noses" there's actually a lot of room for humor here, not the humors of the days of old but the genuinely funny. Under meaning depth, not height. Why are their noses plugged? What happens to their relational stance that renders animism kind of dumb? And forms unemotional? Will to power vs will from creativity, and the creativity transcending levels perhaps, while the forms establish levels. Like the pyramids because an isoceles triangle (I think) extends from the center of the Sun and another extends from the center of the Earth, two tubes that form a shell which is that 11.5 km skin of life, of which we humans and others are tubes, the GI tract. Shell becomes a tube. Supermassive black hole at center of Milky Way as shell Sun that fragmented into suns, the Many which form the tube. Our Sun as a shell that allows the tube of solar system. A person is a tube also in this all-human object sort of, that is in the mammal object, so we eat grass thru paying attention without knowledge, and being given permission, and building structures for flow that builds a shell which is the knowledge pool, that is fragile, brittle when not shared. Person is a spinning top where the two triangles are joined at the "base" and has a faceted middle. When people attend a stand up comedy show for instance, the audience clapping is aligning a simplified (larger, more broad) facet in each person. The comic shows an odd juxtaposition of facets, and the repetitive action of clapping is calming, in order for more outrageousness to occur. Working the facets. Anyway, thanks for the show!
What a fun conversation.
Life is on the border
of chaos and order
Really enjoyed this guys - a privilege speaking to two maestros of process poetry ❤
Really enjoyed this one Matt, thanks also to Tim and Merlin!
If time is circular then forms as markers for animistic flow would allow a tension between past and future accessed thru attention or a tension. A circuit is given permission by the voltage and the current is the oomph, and since the signal is the artistic medium as the juice of animism, the tools that shape the signal like resisters etc might be the equivalent of the forms. Dr Levin is repeating this on a different level than electronics, how cool.
In Mike Levin work the reservoir of possibility is exponentially increased
Adding Victor Wooten to the conversation: ua-cam.com/users/shortsBbc2jF1Eatc?si=7G73Cam27aj6pl5N
Hi Matthew! I'm a big fan of both yourself and of magical Merlin. This is a bit of a tangent away from this video, perhaps, but I was just watching and listening to "Is Value fundamental to the cosmos? Iain McGilchrist in conversation with Zak Stein," also found on UA-cam. And at about an hour and 19 minutes in, or so the moderator, Jonathan Rowe, reads a comment and question from a live viewer, concerning some commentary by Whitehead on "moral order" and "aesthetic order". Whitehead's commentary on these topics really attracted my attention, since I've been attempting to re-conceptualize ethics in relation to aesthetics, and ontology in relation to epistemology, and each of these four in relation to all of the others -- finding the usual way of relating these abysmally dumb. Then I discovered that a book exists: An Outline of Whiteheadian Aesthetics and Beyond. Can you say a little about Whitehead and aesthetics? What's Whitehead up to here in a nut shell?
Thanks! Let me try to spell this out. Whitehead’s cosmology is an invitation to move beyond the modern bifurcation separating nature from culture, fact from value, and mechanism from meaning. This, of course, requires re-evaluating metaphysical assumptions that have been woven into the very fabric of the scientific worldview for hundreds of years. The originators of this worldview conceived the universe as a machine and imagined God as its transcendent designer. Though they differ in the details, this was the imaginative background informing the thoughts of Newton, Descartes, and Kant. Nowadays, scientific materialists no longer have any need for the “God hypothesis” as Laplace famously called it, but the imaginative background informing their ideas remains the same. The universe is still to be understood by analogy to a machine, only now it has become a purposeless machine. Understanding this cosmic machine requires purifying our perspective of any hint of emotion, value, or aesthetic appreciation, since these merely subjective qualities can only contaminate an impartial view of reality. Whitehead’s cosmological scheme provides an alternative.
“The metaphysical doctrine, here expounded,” he writes in the final pages of 'Religion in the Making,' “finds the foundations of the world in the aesthetic experience, rather than-as with Kant [and many contemporary scientific materialists]-in the cognitive and conceptual experience. All order is therefore aesthetic order...The actual world is the outcome of the aesthetic order, and the aesthetic order is derived from the immanence of God.” ('Religion in the Making,' p. 91-92). Whitehead’s God is not a big boss in the sky who designs and determines everything, but the poet of the world-indeed, the tragic poet of the world-who through aesthetic sensitivity beckons all beings toward the highest beauty that is possible for them given the limitations of their finite situations. Beauty is the teleology of the universe. This, at least, is Whitehead's alternative cosmological interpretation of the facts and values entertained by human beings.
I'd recommend the book 'Religion in the Making,' particularly the latter half, for more on this aesthetic perspective. See also the last part of 'Adventures of Ideas' on Truth and Beauty.
@@Footnotes2Plato - Very helpful, thank you!
Then Whitehead's aesthetics utterly and completely inverts (and upends!) the status of aesthetics as I have recently described it, as the abandoned and neglected step-daughter among the ontological, epistemological (onto-epistemic) and the ethical, aesthetic (ethico-aesthetic)! [edited] This is fascinating! I'm very curious to know if arguments are provided for such an upending of the usual order of things, which -- as you know -- has been enduring much longer than the modern and contemporary epoch. I'm curious to know if arguments are even helpful! Maybe mystical experience is what is helpful? Was Whitehead basically a mystic? I'm a nature mystic myself, but one who has been trained up in modern / Western thought and who is trying to find my way in all of it.
Much love, my brother! And thanks!
Sorry, I meant to type out "ethico-aesthetic" as the second pairing. My inquiry and research is an attempt to relate all four "quadrants" in a way which integrates all four (synthesis) rather than isolating them (analysis).
@@j.rivermartin3412 Whitehead certainly provides arguments. In my last book, I do a bit of argumentation, but really I'm attempting to follow through on the experiment of what human experience and the cosmos look and feel like if we take these premises seriously.
OMG, Matt I just finished Merlin's book "Entangled Life," last week!! What the hell! Lookin forward to this :)
Imperance is an interesting notion
Everything flows…except ego: 50:08
Perhaps we need to 'Save the apperarances'
Around 45 min Tim is talking about the biochemistry of a person and how drugs affect etc and there's an answer that is quite profound and simple, where most people have a plugged nose to some degree, pretty much all their lives. "The answer was right under their noses" there's actually a lot of room for humor here, not the humors of the days of old but the genuinely funny. Under meaning depth, not height. Why are their noses plugged? What happens to their relational stance that renders animism kind of dumb? And forms unemotional? Will to power vs will from creativity, and the creativity transcending levels perhaps, while the forms establish levels.
Like the pyramids because an isoceles triangle (I think) extends from the center of the Sun and another extends from the center of the Earth, two tubes that form a shell which is that 11.5 km skin of life, of which we humans and others are tubes, the GI tract. Shell becomes a tube. Supermassive black hole at center of Milky Way as shell Sun that fragmented into suns, the Many which form the tube. Our Sun as a shell that allows the tube of solar system.
A person is a tube also in this all-human object sort of, that is in the mammal object, so we eat grass thru paying attention without knowledge, and being given permission, and building structures for flow that builds a shell which is the knowledge pool, that is fragile, brittle when not shared.
Person is a spinning top where the two triangles are joined at the "base" and has a faceted middle. When people attend a stand up comedy show for instance, the audience clapping is aligning a simplified (larger, more broad) facet in each person. The comic shows an odd juxtaposition of facets, and the repetitive action of clapping is calming, in order for more outrageousness to occur. Working the facets.
Anyway, thanks for the show!
Isn''t creativity fundamental to the universe? Why tried to go beyond it?
Creative outpouring may be fundamental but pragmatism is the first rule seems to me.