Yup. I'm as thick as brick! I do know this though; I'm eternally grateful for Dr Bentley Hart's brilliant mind. We are very lucky to live in age where we have direct access to his thought via podcasts, UA-cam and so on. He has helped free me from the shackles of dogmatic religion where I can now have faith in a good and loving God. A God that I first encountered through a "mystical experience" then rejected through horrific doctrines of certain denominations of the Christian Church. These days I wouldn't darken the door of a church, am not certain in any particular religious belief and enjoy learning about all the great faiths and traditions. Listening to and reading Dr DBH, I have come to have some understanding of the Divine being the "Ground of Being", as Paul Tillich said and "In whom we live and move and have our being"as the apostle Paul said.... But above and beyond that - God is a great, yet ultimately ineffable mystery....
McGilchrist: "Attention is a moral act because attention changes what you find in the world, and...actually changes what there is in the cosmos. We are in some way involved in the process of creation..." Nikolai Berdyaev, looking down, must have enjoyed this conversation.
Listening to this talk by two of my favourite people has just made my spirit take flight and soar to great heights! After reading many of DBH’s books, as well as McGilchrist’s The Master and His Emissary, I had hoped that these two great thinkers would get together for a chat; and here it is. Many thanks for presenting this very interesting and valuable discussion by two people who could reasonably be described as living treasures.
@51:24 Iain's comparison between schizophrenia and our left-hemisphere fixated philosophy is almost identical to the point that G.K. Chesterton makes in Orthodoxy (though in different terms). I'm consistently delighted and surprised to see how older thinkers anticipated modern discoveries in psychology.
I really like this from Eliade Mircea: 'The sacred is an element in the structure of consciousness and not a stage in the history of consciousness.' Add to that the idea from Wittgenstein that the origin of language lies behind language and we could have both our consciousness and its verbal articulation given to us a priori.
The idea that our group objective experience is ultimately influenced by our belief systems is so fascinating. Imagine what we in the modern western world are shutting our eyes off against. Would love to see Dr. Hart chat with Malcolm Guite!
1:03 “Reason can become rationalism, rather than a true wisdom.” Reminds me of the outline in the short book by Francis Schaeffer ‘Escape From Reason’ Quite pivotal.
These conversations make me feel like I have an I.Q. of around 20 sometimes but I still enjoy the discussions and try to absorb as much as I can from them. My idea of being a scientist (or pretending to be one) was applying food coloring to water and calling them potions when I was a kid. I wished that had earned me a larger salary.
When I went to college, I was sure I would drown in a sea of Stephen Frys. I was surprised to see that it was more about application than natural brilliance. It was like that saying about 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration. I've no doubt this stuff will come together for you.
@@jasonegeland1446 Oh, sorry, no, not sarcastic at all. I relate to it 100% and loved your image at the end of being a 'scientific' kid. It was a breath of fresh air.
Fascinating. Patristic texts are permeated with descriptions of the mind and the heart (sometimes called the nous) with the mind descending into (? subservient to? ) the heart. This reminds me so much of Ian Mcgilchrisit's description of the left/right brain, with left=mind and right = heart/nous, with the proper balanced state having the master rule the emissary.
It's probably a topic with which you've engaged in for a long time, but as a new listener/supporter, it was fascinating to hear your criticism of "mechanical philosophy" that has developed the past few hundred years in the sciences. I'm a big fan of Chomsky, who despite being an atheist, has made very similar criticisms of precisely the same thing! Thanks for the interview.
'Mind Life and Language are one and the same' says Prof Hart. I like this expression, but as soon as I think it and try to work out what it means, I start to be compelled, as it were, to be analytical, that is, to divide things up by the ideas attached to the words I use in the sense making process. So I think you are right, that is, I intuit that you are right, but I can't explain your rightness - when I even start to do so the oneness of the three things is disrupted.
Deep thanks for this wonderful video! Having been a fan of you both for quite some time now, I have longed for an opportunity to see you and Iain interact, and that longing was clearly justified. Further I just want to say that I very much welcome the slant against Martin Hägglund! It is certainly a point of shame for me as a Swede, that the only claim to fame that Sweden has in philosophy is Hägglund and the death of René Descartes (I would be sort of proud of the latter has not his spectral shade chosen to haunt this land worse than any other, which sort of dampens the sense of achievement, really). Truthful jokes aside, thank you very much for your generosity in releasing these conversations to the public, David. They truly are precious!
Wonderful conversation. Also interesting how most of the video is a more "right hemispheric" conversation, where the hemisphere model is tacitly assumed and acknowledged. This might be the natural "next step" for spreading McGilchirst's work; going beyond the descriptive left-hemispheric framework, to where that in itself is absorbed into a much larger right-hemispheric and generative framework. And gratitude to David Hart for giving credence and academic legitimacy to McGilchrist's work. 🙏🙏
I recently discovered McGilchrist and really want to read his double volume great work. I just got DBH’s new book and so excited to get into it. Also reading Charles Taylor’s new Cosmic Connections. It’s a great time of great books. Just need Sheldrake to put out some kind of great new masterwork and I will feel complete…
These days I find it hard to listen to conversations on YT- they tend to be tedious and unintelligibly studious - so far removed from how our mind works when listening to something (versus reading, taking notes, studying). Dry academic stuff switches my attention off, pomposity makes me retreat but I risked this one because of Iain and David together sounded more promising! Thank you, this was enjoyable, full of "meat" and quite delightful!
1:27:00 This is the torch I carry, and the light I will share. And as I participate in consciousness with younger people I will strive to talk to them honestly and draw from them their innate ability to touch this history, to be called toward the future via the faith which it endows.
As these two wonderful minds are trying to bring Consciousness into direct Understanding, how can it be done if it is infinite. I admit I do not Understand what Consciousness is. What is Consciousness?
@@leavesinthewind7441 Yes how then do people understand it if you haven't practiced self inquiry or contemplation techniques. Direct Experience of absolute Consciousness seems to be the only possible Truth and the way to gain true insight into it. Otherwise it remains metaphysical and intellectual understanding which is also highly profound. How would you pursus an intellectual understanding of consciousness?
Imagination itself is what is really needed and then directing one's OWN Will. The phrase THY WILL BE DONE re-inforces, for me, the necessity to pay attention closely to every single thing these days and act with utmost purity of vision.
Lovely stuff. I'm glad Iain brought up the idea of the Aborigines in some sense inhabiting a different world. If some form of idealism is the case (which I think very likely), then it also seems plausible that certain communities can form their own consensus realities and enchanted environments. If our sensible world is a kind of collective, intersubjective dream, then surely the boundaries between it and the world we'd usually associate with dreaming are more porous than a purely materialist or dualist worldview would allow. Bernado Kastrup has written a bit on the Fatima miracle in his brilliant little book, Meaning In Absurdity, suggesting that it did really happen, in some sense; that perhaps the witnesses just 'popped' into a collective otherworld for a brief time where they saw the sun fall from the sky. One day I hope to get hold of Vine Deloria Jr.'s book, The World We Used to Live In, which documents a time, not too long ago, where Native American medicine men inhabited a world full of miracles and spiritual reality, which might even seem implausible to many who are open to these ideas. Anyway. Wonderful conversation, as always.
I would say whenever I open the Bible, I transport myself in another world that is full of the essence of being humans participating in a divine relationship.
The intrinsic intelligibility of structure should be sufficient to dissuade against materialism. Any possible sense of being would be thinkable being. To circumvent this, the positing of a "thing-in-itself" as transcendental object would surely be no more meaningful than the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". I'd love to see F.H. Bradley's Absolute Idealism and Hylomorphism each get more attention as conversation moves beyond physicalism towards more worthwhile prospects.
I wonder if Professor Hart or some of the commenters could help me understand the exponentially decay function, such as how or why radioactive substance decay or populations can decay exponentially decay.
I wonder if to the extent this kind of conversation, i.e. one involving a high degree of abstraction, could be said to be left brain dominated as McGilchrist has sketched out? What kind of conversation could one have that wouldn't be?
Would it be too neat - trite - to conceptualise the way McGilchrist describes the difference between left and right brain - two complimentary modes of consciouness - as evolving from the evolutionary history of humans as both predators and prey? Left brain sounds super predatory, and right brain as prey-like.
A bit, I think. While it certainly is analogous to both modes of survival, I think it reduces it to predation or fear, when in fact these evolutionary tools help us to do things such as story tell, conceptualise the universe, and philosophize big and small.
McGilchrist claims that there are two forms of attention, one focuses on getting, and other is our awareness of context. You need both (it is a distinction that happened in nervous systems very early in the history of life) but the latter ought to predominate because if you get alienated from the context you disconnect from reality. He claims that this is exactly what is happening in Western culture, which is to say world culture, because we focus too much on our articulations rather than the experience of the real which we create representations to evoke.
Lovely interview. I always wanted to ask DB Hart why he allowed himself to be interviewed by someone like Michael Knowles. It shocked me to my core. It was, to me, like inviting a certain gentleman with a diminutive moustache to your bar mitzvah.
Who is Michael Knowles? Is he that guy who interviewed me about the New Testament translation some years back? If so, I have to plead ignorance. I didn’t know who he was. (I do think one should go light on Hitler comparisons, though. Certain evils are so great that one mustn’t trivialize them by using them as metaphors for all noxious political views.)
@@wordscapes5690Michael Knowles is a pretty mainstream talking head. No more incendiary than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Fair enough if you don’t respect his opinions, but this pearl clutching is a bit much. I enjoy listening to Prof. Hart’s socialist conversations without the slightest bit of indignation.
My wife is from South Bend, Indiana too. I'm apparently not a very good listener as she's most likely mentioned this to me in the past. I even forgot that you were from Indiana until you told me you were drinking coffee out of a Notre Dame mug. I need to correct these memory issues I've been experiencing. Wait a second! Who was I writing this too? Where am I?!
@@leavesinthewind7441 Whoops... Please forgive me. I must have been looking at a different person's profile, but it did say David Bentley Hart. I should have cross referenced it to confirm it. Well, like I've said before, I have a masters degree in making lasting impressions! I won't forget that you're from Maryland (hopefully I get it right this time)!
@@leavesinthewind7441It seems like I remember your mention of residence in Indiana a while back. At least I now know I'm losing my mind completely! My wife told me of a great little Italian restaurant in South Bend. The problem is, I can't remember the name of the place. Anyways, always a pleasure, David!
at 10:57 could someone help me with the name Iain said about the first neural networks 700 million years ago... Nemesis..something ???... just can't quite spell it... or even pronounce it...... sounds like Nemesis-elevektensis but no such creature on google
I.M.: "The two hemispheres each have their own take on the world, how they see the world, attend to the world, and what they find in the world is different It’s not true that the Left hemisphere alone deals with language and reason and that the Right hemisphere alone deals with emotion and visuo spatial. Each deals with just about everything but in a different way and this is based on the way each hemisphere pays attention. Attention changes what you find in the world, and changes what there is in the cosmos. We are involved in the process of creation. We are not passive recorders. How we respond to the world changes it and changes us, for better or worse. What we’re thinking, how we’re thinking, how we’re attending, makes a difference to what there is. All brains…not just human brains… are asymmetrical. We need to pay attention to the world in two ways at the same time. That would be impossible with just one hemisphere, one network. We need two. The Left hemisphere’s purpose is to pay the clearest, sharpest, most narrowly targeted attention to a detail to enable us to pick it up accurately and swiftly. That is how we feed, get things to make shelter, technology….to utilize the world. But if that’s the only attention we have we will be extremely vulnerable and won’t survive. We need at the same time to have a broad, open, sustained, vigilant attention to what is around one without any preconceptions….an enemy, one’s mate, one’s offspring…..all this needs to be observed. So the Left hemisphere kind of attention is piecemeal, targeted at the fragment, and trying to pin it down. It’s target is to help manipulate the world. It sees little tiny fragments that are separate from one another, static, decontextualized, disembodied, and from which we are separate. Essentially what it’s looking at is an abstraction and a generality. It very quickly says “it’s one of those” and puts it into a category. The Right hemisphere is Open, continuous, sustaining of the conceptual and preconceptual field of one’s consciousness. It sees everything as individual and unique. It sees there are patterns but it sees these patterns as composed not of single entities that need to be connected but of flowing connections in which everything is ultimately connected with everything else, where context makes a huge difference and can completely reverse the meaning of what one is looking at, where many things have to remain implicit not explicit as the Left hemisphere insists, where shaded judgements, nuances, the bringing together of 15 different possibilities have to be made possible Whereas in the Left hemisphere it’s got to be quick, black and white, either it’s this or its that. The Right hemisphere’s world is animate, whereas the Left hemisphere’s world is inanimate essentially. The Right hemisphere sees things as they “presence” to us [present themselves to us], as they come into being for us through the act of our attending to them. Whereas the Left hemisphere sees only re-presentations when the phenomenon is no longer present, a rough approximation, like a diagram, or a map or a theory, fairly simple. It jejunes little compared with the world it maps or has a theory about. In the Right hemisphere’s world things are infinitely complex, beautiful, rich, flowing, changing and living The Left hemisphere’s world is made up of bits and pieces that we’ve ordered in a certain way in order to use it. The Right hemisphere is more important
I want to understand how consciousness deniers get to that conclusion. Reality IS consciousness. Imagine existence without mind to experience or understand it. What existence?
I'm not sure why you guys are roasting this chestnut with such flowery language, mr Gilchrist excepted . Why the foggy language its no help to the general population.
With ALL Iain's gifts..perhaps the top gift is his humility..his grace....rare in our times...
He's lovely, totally agree.
His lightness of heart, his humour too. Right-brained bro -' no?
Yup. I'm as thick as brick! I do know this though; I'm eternally grateful for Dr Bentley Hart's brilliant mind. We are very lucky to live in age where we have direct access to his thought via podcasts, UA-cam and so on. He has helped free me from the shackles of dogmatic religion where I can now have faith in a good and loving God. A God that I first encountered through a "mystical experience" then rejected through horrific doctrines of certain denominations of the Christian Church. These days I wouldn't darken the door of a church, am not certain in any particular religious belief and enjoy learning about all the great faiths and traditions. Listening to and reading Dr DBH, I have come to have some understanding of the Divine being the "Ground of Being", as Paul Tillich said and "In whom we live and move and have our being"as the apostle Paul said.... But above and beyond that - God is a great, yet ultimately ineffable mystery....
McGilchrist: "Attention is a moral act because attention changes what you find in the world, and...actually changes what there is in the cosmos. We are in some way involved in the process of creation..." Nikolai Berdyaev, looking down, must have enjoyed this conversation.
Beautiful thank you❤
Aaagh...a man of culture I see
Berdyaev is a name not often seen on You Tube😂
@@the300XM8 😂
Iris Murdoch as well, I would say!
Listening to this talk by two of my favourite people has just made my spirit take flight and soar to great heights! After reading many of DBH’s books, as well as McGilchrist’s The Master and His Emissary, I had hoped that these two great thinkers would get together for a chat; and here it is.
Many thanks for presenting this very interesting and valuable discussion by two people who could reasonably be described as living treasures.
At last seeing them in conversation...I was so pleased to see their esteem for each other.
I've been waiting for these two in conversation for a couple of years now, thanks to all for making it happen
Ditto!
@51:24 Iain's comparison between schizophrenia and our left-hemisphere fixated philosophy is almost identical to the point that G.K. Chesterton makes in Orthodoxy (though in different terms). I'm consistently delighted and surprised to see how older thinkers anticipated modern discoveries in psychology.
An absolutely delightful conversation marked by total sanity on behalf of both parties!
Keep these conversations coming, David. Love it.
I really like this from Eliade Mircea: 'The sacred is an element in the structure of consciousness and not a stage in the history of consciousness.' Add to that the idea from Wittgenstein that the origin of language lies behind language and we could have both our consciousness and its verbal articulation given to us a priori.
The idea that our group objective experience is ultimately influenced by our belief systems is so fascinating. Imagine what we in the modern western world are shutting our eyes off against.
Would love to see Dr. Hart chat with Malcolm Guite!
This conversation brought me quite a lot of joy.
I'm glad
1:03 “Reason can become rationalism, rather than a true wisdom.”
Reminds me of the outline in the short book by Francis Schaeffer ‘Escape From Reason’
Quite pivotal.
These conversations make me feel like I have an I.Q. of around 20 sometimes but
I still enjoy the discussions and try to absorb as much as I can from them. My idea of being a scientist (or pretending to be one) was applying food coloring to water and calling them potions when I was a kid. I wished that had earned me a larger salary.
What a fantastic comment.
When I went to college, I was sure I would drown in a sea of Stephen Frys. I was surprised to see that it was more about application than natural brilliance. It was like that saying about 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration. I've no doubt this stuff will come together for you.
@@rooruffneck Sarcasm?
@@brendantannam499 Thanks. I try to be humble and not pretend to grasp things I'm not able to comprehend, but sometimes I end up surprising myself.
@@jasonegeland1446
Oh, sorry, no, not sarcastic at all. I relate to it 100% and loved your image at the end of being a 'scientific' kid. It was a breath of fresh air.
Two of my most favourite thinkers! I find that I keep coming back to this conversation.
1:39:52
A "radical rewrite" of The Beauty of the Infinite? I would be more than excited to read that!
Fascinating. Patristic texts are permeated with descriptions of the mind and the heart (sometimes called the nous) with the mind descending into (? subservient to? ) the heart.
This reminds me so much of Ian Mcgilchrisit's description of the left/right brain, with left=mind and right = heart/nous, with the proper balanced state having the master rule the emissary.
"Trying to explain religion to a Swede is kind of like trying to make a spatula appreciate Bach. It's just very difficult." - DBH
A friend told me enthusiastically about this conversation- two legends finally meet !! Thank you for publishing this. I’m excited to listen tomorrow.
It's probably a topic with which you've engaged in for a long time, but as a new listener/supporter, it was fascinating to hear your criticism of "mechanical philosophy" that has developed the past few hundred years in the sciences.
I'm a big fan of Chomsky, who despite being an atheist, has made very similar criticisms of precisely the same thing!
Thanks for the interview.
Also, I would like to hear your thoughts on Bernardo Kastrup’s analytical idealism.
Many thanks for the talks as always, I'll have to check out McGilchrist's work.I'm very much so looking forward to your book of mind as well.
Greetings Colin Good to see you here! Jan, San Francisco
Thank you again for these discussions.
Life is a gift. Amazing!!!
Great conversation. Thanks to you both.
'Mind Life and Language are one and the same' says Prof Hart.
I like this expression, but as soon as I think it and try to work out what it means, I start to be compelled, as it were, to be analytical, that is, to divide things up by the ideas attached to the words I use in the sense making process.
So I think you are right, that is, I intuit that you are right, but I can't explain your rightness - when I even start to do so the oneness of the three things is disrupted.
This should be interesting. Can't wait to listen.
1:25:00 to 1:30:00
A brilliant, humble response from Iain. I really like him.
Thank you for posting this.
Deep thanks for this wonderful video! Having been a fan of you both for quite some time now, I have longed for an opportunity to see you and Iain interact, and that longing was clearly justified.
Further I just want to say that I very much welcome the slant against Martin Hägglund! It is certainly a point of shame for me as a Swede, that the only claim to fame that Sweden has in philosophy is Hägglund and the death of René Descartes (I would be sort of proud of the latter has not his spectral shade chosen to haunt this land worse than any other, which sort of dampens the sense of achievement, really).
Truthful jokes aside, thank you very much for your generosity in releasing these conversations to the public, David. They truly are precious!
If I find myself in times to come, sitting peacefully reading a McGilchrist then I will consider myself a very happy man indeed.
Wonderful conversation. Also interesting how most of the video is a more "right hemispheric" conversation, where the hemisphere model is tacitly assumed and acknowledged. This might be the natural "next step" for spreading McGilchirst's work; going beyond the descriptive left-hemispheric framework, to where that in itself is absorbed into a much larger right-hemispheric and generative framework.
And gratitude to David Hart for giving credence and academic legitimacy to McGilchrist's work. 🙏🙏
I recently discovered McGilchrist and really want to read his double volume great work. I just got DBH’s new book and so excited to get into it. Also reading Charles Taylor’s new Cosmic Connections. It’s a great time of great books. Just need Sheldrake to put out some kind of great new masterwork and I will feel complete…
Thank you.....Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor's personal experience speaks too here...
These days I find it hard to listen to conversations on YT- they tend to be tedious and unintelligibly studious - so far removed from how our mind works when listening to something (versus reading, taking notes, studying). Dry academic stuff switches my attention off, pomposity makes me retreat but I risked this one because of Iain and David together sounded more promising! Thank you, this was enjoyable, full of "meat" and quite delightful!
I would be good with footnotes...but I slowed my left brain down and put the right one on vibrate only... listened to every word with gratitude
"the reduction to the inevitable terminus of this sort of reasoning...we've acheived an absolute absence of communion with reality"
These two are inspirational
When is "The Matter With Things" going to be < $100? (even in paperback)
"Trying to get a Swede to appreciate spirituality is like trying to get a spatula to appreciate Bach" 😂
1:27:00 This is the torch I carry, and the light I will share. And as I participate in consciousness with younger people I will strive to talk to them honestly and draw from them their innate ability to touch this history, to be called toward the future via the faith which it endows.
This was a great palliative for the Madness I witness descending on us.
Vaya con Dios, amigos!
1:41:35 life is an ecstatic, artistic movement
As these two wonderful minds are trying to bring Consciousness into direct Understanding, how can it be done if it is infinite. I admit I do not Understand what Consciousness is.
What is Consciousness?
Everything.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Yes how then do people understand it if you haven't practiced self inquiry or contemplation techniques.
Direct Experience of absolute Consciousness seems to be the only possible Truth and the way to gain true insight into it. Otherwise it remains metaphysical and intellectual understanding which is also highly profound.
How would you pursus an intellectual understanding of consciousness?
Imagination itself is what is really needed and then directing one's OWN Will. The phrase THY WILL BE DONE re-inforces, for me, the necessity to pay attention closely to every single thing these days and act with utmost purity of vision.
Lovely stuff. I'm glad Iain brought up the idea of the Aborigines in some sense inhabiting a different world.
If some form of idealism is the case (which I think very likely), then it also seems plausible that certain communities can form their own consensus realities and enchanted environments. If our sensible world is a kind of collective, intersubjective dream, then surely the boundaries between it and the world we'd usually associate with dreaming are more porous than a purely materialist or dualist worldview would allow.
Bernado Kastrup has written a bit on the Fatima miracle in his brilliant little book, Meaning In Absurdity, suggesting that it did really happen, in some sense; that perhaps the witnesses just 'popped' into a collective otherworld for a brief time where they saw the sun fall from the sky.
One day I hope to get hold of Vine Deloria Jr.'s book, The World We Used to Live In, which documents a time, not too long ago, where Native American medicine men inhabited a world full of miracles and spiritual reality, which might even seem implausible to many who are open to these ideas.
Anyway. Wonderful conversation, as always.
That's a lovely comment.
I would say whenever I open the Bible, I transport myself in another world that is full of the essence of being humans participating in a divine relationship.
does one hemisphere get repressed by a psychological defense mechanism? does it just get blocked off? or is it repressed into an unconscious?
Bernardo Kastrup or John Vervake next?
Very cool.
I would love to see a discussion with Peter Hacker (author of “Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience”).
I have to admit I think he’s a bit of a lightweight.
Mr. Hart, would you discuss with William Desmond? It would be great.
Notva bad idea.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Hello Dr. Hart, what about Michael Levin?
The intrinsic intelligibility of structure should be sufficient to dissuade against materialism. Any possible sense of being would be thinkable being. To circumvent this, the positing of a "thing-in-itself" as transcendental object would surely be no more meaningful than the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". I'd love to see F.H. Bradley's Absolute Idealism and Hylomorphism each get more attention as conversation moves beyond physicalism towards more worthwhile prospects.
What was the final hidden question?
I wonder if Professor Hart or some of the commenters could help me understand the exponentially decay function, such as how or why radioactive substance decay or populations can decay exponentially decay.
I wonder if to the extent this kind of conversation, i.e. one involving a high degree of abstraction, could be said to be left brain dominated as McGilchrist has sketched out? What kind of conversation could one have that wouldn't be?
Only appropriately so…
I wish David would talk to Vervaeke and Pageau
Would it be too neat - trite - to conceptualise the way McGilchrist describes the difference between left and right brain - two complimentary modes of consciouness - as evolving from the evolutionary history of humans as both predators and prey? Left brain sounds super predatory, and right brain as prey-like.
A bit, I think. While it certainly is analogous to both modes of survival, I think it reduces it to predation or fear, when in fact these evolutionary tools help us to do things such as story tell, conceptualise the universe, and philosophize big and small.
McGilchrist claims that there are two forms of attention, one focuses on getting, and other is our awareness of context. You need both (it is a distinction that happened in nervous systems very early in the history of life) but the latter ought to predominate because if you get alienated from the context you disconnect from reality. He claims that this is exactly what is happening in Western culture, which is to say world culture, because we focus too much on our articulations rather than the experience of the real which we create representations to evoke.
While deeply aware of my ignorance, this was a truly uplifting experience, I shall return to the conversation. Thanks to both participants.
Reminds me also of the master - servant dialectic as described by Plato, Hegel, Nietzsche, Nishitani, Lacan and presumably others.
Lovely interview. I always wanted to ask DB Hart why he allowed himself to be interviewed by someone like Michael Knowles. It shocked me to my core. It was, to me, like inviting a certain gentleman with a diminutive moustache to your bar mitzvah.
Who is Michael Knowles? Is he that guy who interviewed me about the New Testament translation some years back? If so, I have to plead ignorance. I didn’t know who he was. (I do think one should go light on Hitler comparisons, though. Certain evils are so great that one mustn’t trivialize them by using them as metaphors for all noxious political views.)
@@leavesinthewind7441 The comparison was intended to contrast your kindness and not highlight his wickedness. I apologize, and agree.
@@wordscapes5690No need to apologize. Just a friendly caution. But was I right? Is that Knowles?
@@leavesinthewind7441 Yes, that’s the one. I bought your translation, and followed it up with a UA-cam search, and he popped up.
@@wordscapes5690Michael Knowles is a pretty mainstream talking head. No more incendiary than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Fair enough if you don’t respect his opinions, but this pearl clutching is a bit much. I enjoy listening to Prof. Hart’s socialist conversations without the slightest bit of indignation.
Would love to see a conversation between you and Bernado Kastrup next
Brilliant men.
Bernardo Kastrup up next would be interesting. His work has many interesting parallels to your upcoming book on philosophy of mind.
Lol, are you kidding.
1:37:30
My wife is from South Bend, Indiana too. I'm apparently not a very good listener as she's most likely mentioned this to me in the past. I even forgot that you were from Indiana until you told me you were drinking coffee out of a Notre Dame mug. I need to correct these memory issues I've been experiencing. Wait a second! Who was I writing this too? Where am I?!
I am not from Indiana.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Whoops...
Please forgive me. I must have been looking at a different person's profile, but it did say David Bentley Hart. I should have cross referenced it to confirm it.
Well, like I've said before, I have a masters degree in making lasting impressions! I won't forget that you're from Maryland (hopefully I get it right this time)!
@@jasonegeland1446 I do live in South Bend at the moment, but that's happenstance.
@@leavesinthewind7441It seems like I remember your mention of residence in Indiana a while back.
At least I now know I'm losing my mind completely! My wife told me of a great little Italian restaurant in South Bend. The problem is, I can't remember the name of the place. Anyways, always a pleasure, David!
I messed that up again. I meant to say, "...not losing my mind completely. " I'm sitting in my car in the heat, so I'll blame it on that, lol.
"the whole universe is consciousness". The Hindu sages discovered this a few thousand years ago
As I have repeatedly written.
at 10:57 could someone help me with the name Iain said about the first neural networks 700 million years ago... Nemesis..something ???... just can't quite spell it... or even pronounce it...... sounds like Nemesis-elevektensis but no such creature on google
Nematostella vectensis
I.M.: "The two hemispheres each have their own take on the world, how they see the world, attend to the world, and what they find in the world is different
It’s not true that the Left hemisphere alone deals with language and reason and that the Right hemisphere alone deals with emotion and visuo spatial. Each deals with just about everything but in a different way and this is based on the way each hemisphere pays attention.
Attention changes what you find in the world, and changes what there is in the cosmos. We are involved in the process of creation. We are not passive recorders. How we respond to the world changes it and changes us, for better or worse. What we’re thinking, how we’re thinking, how we’re attending, makes a difference to what there is.
All brains…not just human brains… are asymmetrical.
We need to pay attention to the world in two ways at the same time. That would be impossible with just one hemisphere, one network. We need two.
The Left hemisphere’s purpose is to pay the clearest, sharpest, most narrowly targeted attention to a detail to enable us to pick it up accurately and swiftly. That is how we feed, get things to make shelter, technology….to utilize the world.
But if that’s the only attention we have we will be extremely vulnerable and won’t survive.
We need at the same time to have a broad, open, sustained, vigilant attention to what is around one without any preconceptions….an enemy, one’s mate, one’s offspring…..all this needs to be observed.
So the Left hemisphere kind of attention is piecemeal, targeted at the fragment, and trying to pin it down. It’s target is to help manipulate the world. It sees little tiny fragments that are separate from one another, static, decontextualized, disembodied, and from which we are separate. Essentially what it’s looking at is an abstraction and a generality. It very quickly says “it’s one of those” and puts it into a category.
The Right hemisphere is Open, continuous, sustaining of the conceptual and preconceptual field of one’s consciousness. It sees everything as individual and unique. It sees there are patterns but it sees these patterns as composed not of single entities that need to be connected but of flowing connections in which everything is ultimately connected with everything else, where context makes a huge difference and can completely reverse the meaning of what one is looking at, where many things have to remain implicit not explicit as the Left hemisphere insists, where shaded judgements, nuances, the bringing together of 15 different possibilities have to be made possible
Whereas in the Left hemisphere it’s got to be quick, black and white, either it’s this or its that.
The Right hemisphere’s world is animate, whereas the Left hemisphere’s world is inanimate essentially.
The Right hemisphere sees things as they “presence” to us [present themselves to us], as they come into being for us through the act of our attending to them.
Whereas the Left hemisphere sees only re-presentations when the phenomenon is no longer present, a rough approximation, like a diagram, or a map or a theory, fairly simple. It jejunes little compared with the world it maps or has a theory about.
In the Right hemisphere’s world things are infinitely complex, beautiful, rich, flowing, changing and living
The Left hemisphere’s world is made up of bits and pieces that we’ve ordered in a certain way in order to use it.
The Right hemisphere is more important
TO THE POWER OF TEN. ENDS AND MEANS
1:21:25 Algorithms to chains of association leading to obsessions…….pure fantasy, pure distraction. Scary and true.
Pliancy of Consciousness.
Watch @ x1.5
💗
I want to understand how consciousness deniers get to that conclusion. Reality IS consciousness. Imagine existence without mind to experience or understand it. What existence?
Rates of atheism among physicists 1:07:08
😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱 so excited!!!!!
I'm not sure why you guys are roasting this chestnut with such flowery language, mr Gilchrist excepted . Why the foggy language its no help to the general population.
The language is clear throughout.