Epic riff on where you’re at ! You covered a lot of ground! I agree with almost everything you said, with some minor nuanced exceptions. Sad to hear Wolfgang’s take on Chardin, one of my Mt. Rushmore favorites. I’v only listened to a small sample of Smith’s ideas. I love Process Theology to the extent I can understand it. I think Chardin and now Ilia Delio are modern day prophets. Evolution in so many domains seems obvious to me. I am a Progressive, Theistic Evolutionary, metamodern Christian.lol. I learned and practice a simple zen meditation technique, danced Zikhr with Sufi friends, dances of Universal Peace and my prayer life includes centering Prayer and Lectio Divina. Like you, I looked far and wide for a spiritual home. I can’t buy into creeds and dogma. Finally, I discovered the United Church of Christ. It’s 20 miles away but very worth the drive. My Pastor embraces the historical critical biblical view, while highlighting the spiritual significance that comes from reading scriptures. We are open and affirming, all are welcome and celebrated. The communion table is always open to everyone, just as Jesus modeled. You might like to visit a UCC church. Of course, each Pastor is different and that is important. Like Paul Kingsnorth says, “The future Christianity will be Mystical, or it won’t survive.” I agree wholeheartedly. People want an authentic, deep spiritual connection. That’s why so many have turned to the East. But it’s available in Christianity as well. Sorry this is so long ! I have your books & am a big fan. You’re on the right track, keep up the great work.
Ideas for people same as ideas sent out by grass forms, where time lag from consuming grass inspires ideas in the horizontal, also having more time to think as a result. 8 effect octave where 50 Hz keeps C-ing, with groups as chords in this gliding/spinning.
Quantum entanglement makes a lot more sense if we do away with the intuition that space is our ultimate medium rather than recetivity, which is essentially the driving mechanism of time, which itself if the translational metric for space. The above intuition causes us to view the speed of light as a product of light's nature rather than as a limitation of the perceptibility of information. The cap on how fast anything can travel through space, I believe, comes from within the same mode of externalising space as a representative interpretation of information perception over time. Space is essentially inside-out, so to speak. In this case, entanglement doesn't involve "things" across "space". It's a representation of the source of what ends up being interpreted as such. Unfortunately this requires a further explanation of a sort of "scale relativity" that would necessarily have to exist as a direct biproduct of an inwardly interpreted/outwardly projected spacial medium, but I'm writing a UA-cam comment, not a book😅
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like you're drawing a dichotomy between a purely mechanistic ontology and that of one governed by a conscious force of which we're all a part. My question is, why can't the latter exist as part of the former? A mind isn't the act of experiencing as much as it is the ability to process the content of an experience. I don't see why that's necessary for the simple subjective on-switch to have evolved our universe to this point. It would only take a primordial sensate default state plus a primordial will to sense. None of this implies thoughts or intentions and yet it can stand up to the test of implicit responsibility for every other cause. I believe that both ends of information exchange - active and receptive - are simultaneously compulsive and causal at the root of all things. I feel like a big issue in discussing this sort of topic is the convenience of mystical analogies. Philosophy lacks the approachable verbiage that mysticism offers us, but I think that comes with a lot of baggage and a lot of people end up taking it too literally. Even as a determinist who doesn't believe in free will, I find the easiest way to refer to this first-cause polarity of emanation and perceptivity in the idealistic framework is by using terminology borrowed from the hermetic qabalah and other modern esoteric schemas. Could this be what's confusing me about your approach? Am I taking your analogies too literally, or do you ascribe an actual mind to the nature of the universe?
What people don’t understand, because they see materialism and non-dualism in conflict, is that they are only 2 key aspects of the same thing. Also, we reject infinities in mathematics without understanding them. Infinity is extremely important to us. We need to understand and not reject ALL THINGS. ❤ There’s a WORLD of difference between A coherent story, and THE coherent story. One is a fairytale story for the extinct, the other is life. The primary error humans make is in their ignorance of our epistemological past. We don’t really understand what the path of knowledge is or what it means. So: 1) motivations other than truth is the death-path. A funeral lullaby for the blind. 2) they don’t know what things mean. They don’t even pay attention to the process of what universes do because they are so self-referent and instrumental in their attentions. Always in history they think they understand, but they do not. Now is no different. If you read “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” you will just BEGIN to see the door opening on a vast new world where we can and will know anew. Everything we think we know is about to change.
pulling of inference between objects as expansion of the universe? Some cycloidic frenzy gathered in by the good crook of the staff as loop then flower, self aware in displaying fruit.
Theory not theology. But it only relates to the growth by natural selection of populations of living organisms over millions of years and has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. Anyone who says it does is not understanding the theory.
@@prestonbacchus4204 yes but note evolution as such is a far more general idea than just Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection. Darwin didn’t even call his theory evolution. The idea of a common descent of life predates him.
@@Footnotes2Plato Well, a common descent is what we have as they are saying all life we know of emerged 4 billion years ago from LUCA. Many scientists still hold out belief in abiogenesis but at least as far as we can tell now, it remains possible that "life" emerged naturally and inevitably out of the big bang.
attenuation in the horizontal from the energy of the eternal vertical singularity with looping objects that spin inside while gliding like children around a maypole. Attenuation as the horizontal looks back and sees a glittering multifaceted and colored fruit which it devours while birthing justice, another ring around the fractal. Imaginal and emotional communication space trading objects as finely tuned instrument for the Blob to see itself as ring that ascends to cone and joins in EM as time cutting ties to the vertical horizontal hourglass as evolution or energy spinning top.
Dang, starting listening to this on the toilet, and heard the beeping sound, and for a second I thought my house was on fire.
I really appreciate you sharing these ideas!
Btw, I think there’s an audacity plugin that would help remove the background noises (car horns, etc).
Epic riff on where you’re at ! You covered a lot of ground! I agree with almost everything you said, with some minor nuanced exceptions. Sad to hear Wolfgang’s take on Chardin, one of my Mt. Rushmore favorites. I’v only listened to a small sample of Smith’s ideas.
I love Process Theology to the extent I can understand it. I think Chardin and now Ilia Delio are modern day prophets. Evolution in so many domains seems obvious to me.
I am a Progressive, Theistic Evolutionary, metamodern Christian.lol. I learned and practice a simple zen meditation technique, danced Zikhr with Sufi friends, dances of Universal Peace and my prayer life includes centering Prayer and Lectio Divina.
Like you, I looked far and wide for a spiritual home. I can’t buy into creeds and dogma. Finally, I discovered the United Church of Christ. It’s 20 miles away but very worth the drive. My Pastor embraces the historical critical biblical view, while highlighting the spiritual significance that comes from reading scriptures. We are open and affirming, all are welcome and celebrated. The communion table is always open to everyone, just as Jesus modeled.
You might like to visit a UCC church. Of course, each Pastor is different and that is important.
Like Paul Kingsnorth says, “The future Christianity will be Mystical, or it won’t survive.” I agree wholeheartedly. People want an authentic, deep spiritual connection. That’s why so many have turned to the East. But it’s available in Christianity as well.
Sorry this is so long ! I have your books & am a big fan. You’re on the right track, keep up the great work.
The word made flesh isn't something that happened, it is something that is happening.
Ideas for people same as ideas sent out by grass forms, where time lag from consuming grass inspires ideas in the horizontal, also having more time to think as a result. 8 effect octave where 50 Hz keeps C-ing, with groups as chords in this gliding/spinning.
Quantum entanglement makes a lot more sense if we do away with the intuition that space is our ultimate medium rather than recetivity, which is essentially the driving mechanism of time, which itself if the translational metric for space. The above intuition causes us to view the speed of light as a product of light's nature rather than as a limitation of the perceptibility of information. The cap on how fast anything can travel through space, I believe, comes from within the same mode of externalising space as a representative interpretation of information perception over time. Space is essentially inside-out, so to speak.
In this case, entanglement doesn't involve "things" across "space". It's a representation of the source of what ends up being interpreted as such. Unfortunately this requires a further explanation of a sort of "scale relativity" that would necessarily have to exist as a direct biproduct of an inwardly interpreted/outwardly projected spacial medium, but I'm writing a UA-cam comment, not a book😅
Thank you for sharing 🙏🏼
Considering:
Evolutionary ...Theory, Theology and Theography.... Yearnings
I made a playlist to clarify my thoughts on this.
Wonderful. Thank you Matthew.🙏🏻
19:14 Every one of us is the Incarnation. Yet the One is more than all
Pirsig's metaphysics of quality = evolutionary biology. Replace quality event with Niche, subject with Organism, and object with Habitat. Quality = Fitness perceived subjectivly
Fitness = Quality measured objectively
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like you're drawing a dichotomy between a purely mechanistic ontology and that of one governed by a conscious force of which we're all a part.
My question is, why can't the latter exist as part of the former? A mind isn't the act of experiencing as much as it is the ability to process the content of an experience. I don't see why that's necessary for the simple subjective on-switch to have evolved our universe to this point. It would only take a primordial sensate default state plus a primordial will to sense. None of this implies thoughts or intentions and yet it can stand up to the test of implicit responsibility for every other cause. I believe that both ends of information exchange - active and receptive - are simultaneously compulsive and causal at the root of all things.
I feel like a big issue in discussing this sort of topic is the convenience of mystical analogies. Philosophy lacks the approachable verbiage that mysticism offers us, but I think that comes with a lot of baggage and a lot of people end up taking it too literally. Even as a determinist who doesn't believe in free will, I find the easiest way to refer to this first-cause polarity of emanation and perceptivity in the idealistic framework is by using terminology borrowed from the hermetic qabalah and other modern esoteric schemas. Could this be what's confusing me about your approach? Am I taking your analogies too literally, or do you ascribe an actual mind to the nature of the universe?
What people don’t understand, because they see materialism and non-dualism in conflict, is that they are only 2 key aspects of the same thing. Also, we reject infinities in mathematics without understanding them. Infinity is extremely important to us. We need to understand and not reject ALL THINGS. ❤
There’s a WORLD of difference between A coherent story, and THE coherent story. One is a fairytale story for the extinct, the other is life.
The primary error humans make is in their ignorance of our epistemological past. We don’t really understand what the path of knowledge is or what it means.
So:
1) motivations other than truth is the death-path. A funeral lullaby for the blind.
2) they don’t know what things mean. They don’t even pay attention to the process of what universes do because they are so self-referent and instrumental in their attentions. Always in history they think they understand, but they do not. Now is no different.
If you read “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” you will just BEGIN to see the door opening on a vast new world where we can and will know anew. Everything we think we know is about to change.
Technically it's teleology
pulling of inference between objects as expansion of the universe? Some cycloidic frenzy gathered in by the good crook of the staff as loop then flower, self aware in displaying fruit.
Theory not theology. But it only relates to the growth by natural selection of populations of living organisms over millions of years and has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. Anyone who says it does is not understanding the theory.
@@prestonbacchus4204 yes but note evolution as such is a far more general idea than just Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection. Darwin didn’t even call his theory evolution. The idea of a common descent of life predates him.
@@Footnotes2Plato Well, a common descent is what we have as they are saying all life we know of emerged 4 billion years ago from LUCA. Many scientists still hold out belief in abiogenesis but at least as far as we can tell now, it remains possible that "life" emerged naturally and inevitably out of the big bang.
thanks
attenuation in the horizontal from the energy of the eternal vertical singularity with looping objects that spin inside while gliding like children around a maypole. Attenuation as the horizontal looks back and sees a glittering multifaceted and colored fruit which it devours while birthing justice, another ring around the fractal. Imaginal and emotional communication space trading objects as finely tuned instrument for the Blob to see itself as ring that ascends to cone and joins in EM as time cutting ties to the vertical horizontal hourglass as evolution or energy spinning top.
Non of the two.
Ughhh 😆