The nature of the cosmic mind
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Both Rupert Sheldrake and Bernardo Kastrup are outspoken critics of mechanical materialism. In previous episodes, I already had a conversation with Bernardo Kastrup about his philosophical idealism and how that might influence our view of religion. With Rupert I had an in-depth dialogue about the seven secular myths about religion. However, I was surprised to find out that there were no recordings of the two of them discussing one of their core interests together: consciousness and its relation to the formation of reality. So, I reached out to them and proposed to moderate a talk about the overlaps and divergences in their views. In a sense, this led to a logical follow-up to our previous conversations, since we moved our focus from ‘religion’ to ‘God.’ That is to say, we engagaged in a discussion on the divine essence of existence. Casting a new light on age-old philosophical debates, the conversation explored the inherent consciousness underlying all reality in its deepest depths and highest heights. Rupert and Bernardo reinforced as well as nuanced each other’s perspectives, with a thought-provoking dialogue about the nature of the cosmic mind as a result.
For a video version of this conversation: • Bernardo Kastrup and R...
For the previous episode with Bernardo Kastrup: podcasters.spo...
And for Jonas' earlier conversation with Rupert: podcasters.spo... (podcasters.spo...)
-----
For more on Bernardo and his work:
www.bernardoka...
/ @bernardokastrup
www.essentiafo...
/ @essentiafoundation
---
For more on Rupert and his work:
www.sheldrake....
/ @rupertsheldrakephd
/ rupertsheldrake
That, was beautiful! And superbly moderated! Absolutely wonderful! Thank you !!!
These two NEED to talk again. Thank you!
A dream conversation beautifully moderated. ✨️
Thank you so much.
I love Bernardo Kastrup…
His explanations of idealism give me a greater appreciation of the Adwaitha Vedanta philosophy that I feel is the truth.
Awe, thank all of you. I have something to ponder on. ❤
Subscribing! Glad I found this channel, jonas. Thank you! Same as you, I'm surprised these guys really haven't been in conversation before? For that matter, it would be awesome to see a conversation involving them and Keith ward. He's another religious anti-physicalist, like dr sheldrake. And he's got excellent, excellent ways of explaining things.
But would not plasma stepping down into an electrical field be a form of conscious interaction? This is a wonderful conversation! I think this is a broad stroke, but it is a form of consciousness, intelligent at its core.
For those interested, Jonas published an addendum to the conversation, where he offers some of his own views on the topics discussed in the conversation and adds an extra layer of nuance by revisiting an old philosophical debate on the non-dual nature of reality and the relationship between sat, chit and ananda. You can read it here: medium.com/re-visioning-religion/what-if-beauty-is-the-meaning-of-life-29beaf553021
This exact same conversation appears elsewhere on another channel
This is indeed the audio podcast version. The video version was uploaded on Rupert Sheldrake's channel.
Wonderful!
Rodriguez Eric Garcia Melissa Brown Gary
Super dank u
Allen Linda Taylor Steven Martin George
Hmm.
Awesome!! One of the very best conversations on spirituality, science and consciousness I've ever heard (and I watch a lot of these UA-cam videos!) 🙏🏻
Part 2 please and focus on metaphors in religious symbolism! Akin to “more than allegory” and Rupert’s understanding of metaphor! Rupert actually talks about metafives! Haha ❤
Thomas Carol Gonzalez Kevin Walker Edward
Thompson Michael Martinez Gary Anderson Angela
Thomas Frank White Frank Jones Jeffrey
A wonderful, thought provoking discussion with two of my favourite thinkers that really stretched my little bird brain.
It would be a real treat to listen to Bernardo talking to David Bentley Hart, with whom Rupert had a discussion that was also very interesting.
Outstanding and insightful discussion . Thank you
Awesome 👌
This talk is more than a year old...maybe more, correct? Please mention the date of the talk in the description so viewers know when it happened, thank you.
The talk is not not a year old. The original video version was published on Rupert's channel January 5th 2024 (link in the description). The talk was recorded a few weeks before. The video's of the Re-visioning Religion podcast series were first uploaded to UA-cam in February 2024, but from now on they will be published when ready (which is always a couple of weeks after recording).
I love both of these thinkers and this was a great conversation. Bernardo's view of idealism is interesting in that he continues to think that everything is mind but completely determined, and so no escape from billiard balls, even for mind at large. To me it seems that referencing the deterministic framework of materialism or physicalism in a universe where everything is of and in consciousness is an odd extrapolation.
If all is mind then the nature of mind should be the framework for all of its thoughts, activities and creativity, but where do we have any indication that mind is wholly determined? Only in the reductive materialist framework do we have this idea.
If we begin with the idea that all is in and of consciousness then we enter the world of meaning and intent, and then comes the question of free will. Bernardo is a determinist who sees some independence at the level of dissociated beings with meta consciousness, but still no departure from a strictly billiard ball universe. But what could possibly determine mind at large if mind at large determines all else?
If time and space don't exist, the question of determinism means little to nothing if all eventualities eventually occur then you would experience every decision and outcome in your trek through infinity regardless.
@@frankp.3197There are always more ways of looking at things. If time does not exist as anything more than a noticing or measuring of change, and if change is the result of motion, then we may have a different way of analyzing the nature of causality. That in turn could lead to a different dynamic for determinism and free will.
@@morphixnm I mean the simple fact we exist period means we had to have been in the soup since infinity. I think most would agree everything didn't start from nothing. Even if you remove time and space you would still be left with infinity.
Infinity is enough to live every decision and outcome from this life, and every other life and all it's forms and then some.
I would define free will as the ability to choose. Unless I can be convinced of an actual beginning to everything, then free will or determinism doesn't mean anything in infinity.
@@frankp.3197 your argument from infinity is a good one!
Where can I find the video?
As it says in the description, the video version can be found here: ua-cam.com/video/Wi1U7Cw4XV0/v-deo.html
@@revisioningreligion thank you mister. I should learn how to read more carefully. 😀
two of my very favourite philosophers. Wonderful talk. Thank you all.
Keep up the good work. This will change the world if people listen.
❤