Video

Great talk! Being has reason(s) that reason cannot know, but experience can show....

The "problem" of "evil" is a question fraught with confusion. First. the question must be asked if we're using the word "evil" as a noun or an adjective. The word has legitimacy when used as an adjective to describe any deliberately malevolent act. However the word has no legitimacy when it's erroneously used to describe some imaginary essence that independently exists in some nonphysical reality. This is a fantasy based on biblical superstition. You cannot name one single instance where any malevolent act was not a direct result of human volition and free choice. It's not the "devil" or some disembodied spirit that prompts us to slaughter our own kind and show indifference to suffering. In every case we choose this behavior either directly or accept it by default because others have. The most compelling answer to "problem of evil" was offered at 2:00 where Mr Kuhn suggests that God chooses to be a "self limiting" God to allow and protect human freedom. What freedom do I have if I'm compelled to always choose what's good and right? The answer is I have no freedom if I can't choose wrongly. Personal ethics and morality would have no meaning if I didn't have the choice of rejecting them.

Thanks for this. Will you be posting the rest of the discussion?

Thanks Andrew

So good - thanks guys.

I found "The Master and His Emissary" wonderful. "The Matter with Things" disturbingly devolves into a clutching at metaphysical reeds. I find it disturbing and sad that anyone with a scientific attitude and appreciations of nature would want and will look for supernatural significances. The quest makes a distinction which allows speculations of the divine by debasing appreciations of nature.

Probably won’t be there for the conference but wish I could be. Thanks guys. I look forward to any videos that surface afterward. 👍

Thanks for doing this! Will the conference be filmed and later put on CZcams?

I find myself hanging on every word when Iain McGilchrist speaks. Side note: And "while" I was hanging on every word...I was also noticing Mathew's mannerisms as he was listening...and it got me wondering if he is an INFJ (myers briggs typology indicator)...because that's what I believe I am and Mathew's mannerisms are soooooo much like my own (I've had to re-watch a number of zoom calls in which I have participated....otherwise I wouldn't have a clue about my own mannerisms) I don't really expect an answer, but boy oh boy would it be a treat if I got one.

McGilchrist is sure a charlatan

Sorry I missed the early part of this convo… how in-person will the conference be?

Well, that's a coincidence. Not even a day ago, I was wondering to myself if McGilchrist and Vervaeke had ever had any interactions with the "Process-sphere".

Is an eternal object similar to aquina’s essence, from which arises a thing’s specific form and material?

Whitehead “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them”. Fascinating

I think McGilchrist's ideas on re- presentation could have interesting interfaces with sacramental theology.

In regards to establishing or exemplifying metaphysical principles, I think God does both. For us humans to discover, define or describe metaphysical principles we have two paths and domains of perception and discovery, the external or temporal one of observation where we can see what has been established by God and the internal or eternal one of emotion where we can feel what God exemplifies. The goal of both observation and emotion is self-identification, -reflection and -actualization, and both are mutually self-reinforcing.

Good rebuttal. I have found that God's Intensity is best explained/understood with/through the emotion of Nostalgia and its "bittersweetness" (see also: "Nostalgia and Spirituality" Biskas, et al. 2022). God's Morality is best explained/understood with/through what I have termed a "Win-Win Utilitarianism Infinite Games Mindset". I agree that the Nature of Whitehead's God is Goodness, but God's Nature is impersonal and therefore can seem to be lacking goodness on first or superficial inspection and interpretation.

In my humble opinion, Astrology is the original "Process Philosophy" and "Whiteheadian Cosmotheology." 🌌

Thank you Andrew, been following your lectures for some time, very interesting and valuable

Thank you for sparking another enlightening evening of conversation. It seems his work has influenced many of the profound thinkers of today. Tonight's discussion: Whether we have evolved to believe in a Supreme Being, created God in our own likeness and/or the reflection of our environment, or perhaps there truly is a divine organizer beckoning us, the distinction between these possibilities might be of lesser importance. Maybe, at its core, the belief that something beyond our understanding is there and gives a damn about us provides an advantage, whether it be mechanistic, transcendent, or perhaps both. Maybe, just maybe, this belief and the quest for understanding are intrinsically linked with consciousness and the genesis of culture. Perhaps this simple act is a key ingredient that helped us move beyond basic 'feed and breed' dominance hierarchies.

Great presentation!

Yes!

Awesome, can't wait to read. In the context of process philosophy/theology what would be books you would recommend to read on the topic of the Trinity?

I find it hard to see becoming giving rise to being. It seems to me that becoming is a mode or property of being. Substances change, substances dont emerge from change

Fascinating discussion. When speaking of the Bible, there are several different gods . Even within the Old Testament. Question we can ask ourselves is why God so often referred to as a warlord? Much of the Bible was written by tribalistic warlords of the biblical era. In that era, this masculine God held such an all-encompassing and prominent role in daily life, and was so incredibly violent, that none of us would want to live there. The only thing keeping one tribe from hacking the other into pieces was its ability to do so. As resources were often thin and access to calories or good lands scarce, trade was often held between rival clans or tribes of equal status, or where the cost of going to war might be too high. Otherwise, it was rape, pillage, plunder, and steal. Psalms 137:9 says, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Here we see the barbarism of killing the babies of the enemy born of a different tribe. The God of the Bible was created to fit their time in history and their world. For instance, Exodus 15:3 states, "The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name." The God of the Old Testament was hardly an ambassador for peace, love, or kindness. He embodied the characteristics of a tribal warlord. His moral dictates rarely extended beyond his insular tribe. This was not unique to the Jews alone. So for the rest of the world, it was not kindness but cruelty, not peace but slaughter, not compassion but intolerance, not equality but dominance. Most every tribe believed they were God's chosen and special people. The God of the Old Testament was a primal evolutionary reflection of a tribal world. During that time, many environmental pressures led to an intolerant, masculine God being "reflected back" to their cruel, harsh world. This God brought order out of fear, particularly among aggressive, testosterone-filled men desperate for limited resources, such as access to protein, good farming lands, and women. Starvation and premature death were commonplace. The “God” of the Bible is no exception to these environmental pressures. Submitting to the alpha male is an ancient evolutionary norm, even in the dominance hierarchies of our modern world. Follow him and only him, or there will be hell to pay. This is changing as our environments and access to resources change. As Jane Goodall observed, we are social primates living in dominance hierarchies, quite similar to the robust chimpanzee. In chimps, dominant and powerful alpha males manage lesser males, who assist in keeping the peace because they fear the violent cost of challenging the alpha's position. In Numbers 16, God killed about 15,000 men, women, and children for simply complaining about the 300 God killed the day earlier. When tallying up the numbers, estimates are that God killed about 30 million people in the Bible. Furthermore, the reference to God as the "Lord of hosts" over 261 times essentially translates into the "God of war" or the "God of armies." Now, of course, I have focused here on a very narrow window of the nature and character of the Old Testament God. I have not touched on the metaphorical nature of many stories presented, nor on the moral and ethical ideas they are trying to convey about the nature of existence and the consequences of behavior, both individually and collectively

So well argued - Thanks Andrew.

czcams.com/video/QEexo9LhSIM/video.html A deep study should be made on sikhism... A very deep profound teachings on panentheism is there, but were misidentified by the british as monotheism... This scriptures has the knowledge of all Living Words mentioned intact, not scattered or lost...all intact.. everything is intact.. God still perfect unchanging, if we understand living words(sounds)

czcams.com/video/QEexo9LhSIM/video.html A deep study should be made on sikhism... A very deep profound teachings on panentheism is there, but were misidentified by the british as monotheism... This scriptures has the knowledge of all Living Words mentioned intact, not scattered or lost...all intact.. everything is intact.. God still perfect unchanging, if we understand living words(sounds)

Thank you very much! An extremely important topic in the search for a way to overcome the conceptual - paradigmatic crisis of the metaphysical / ontological basis of fundamental science, which manifests itself as a "crisis of understanding" (J. Horgan "The End of Science", Kopeikin K.V. "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of the soul : Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics"), "crisis of interpretation and representation" (Romanovskaya T.B. "Modern physics and contemporary art - parallels of style" ) , " loss of certainty" (Kline M. "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty"), "trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin. "The Trouble with Physics:The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next") . Considering the categories of "space" and "time" Whitehead came to the following conclusion: “Space-Time of modern mathematical physics is understood as abstraction of concrete mathematical formulas which are used in relation to the concrete events which take place in it and almost in accuracy repeats the concept of "receptaculum". It should be noted that mathematical physics leave the question concerning the nature of these formulas and how they can be brought out from the concept of space-time opened" A. Whitehead came to a very important metaphysical conclusion: "Mathematical physics translates Heraclitus' saying , "All things flow," into "All things become, all things are vectors." It was the breakthrough of metaphysics to mathematics and physics at the same time - a breakthrough to new knowledge. And the main thing, it was the breakthrough to "the thinking thing", to understanding of cross point of "res cogitans" and "res extensa". Today it is necessary to rethink the whole path of the ideas of the dialectics of the philosophy of process from Heraclitus to Whitehead in order to overcome the crisis of understanding in the foundations of knowledge by building a reliable ontological basis of knowledge by constructing the dialectic-ontological triad "Being - Nothing/Otherness - Becoming", and then constructing the model "Aware Velenya itself" and on its basis - "a super-unified field theory describing both physical and semantic manifestations of the World." (V.Nilimov) A.N. Whitehead: “A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge.”

This answer is a huge cop out. There are religions where it is codified that you should kill apostates, there are religions which say that life is inherently bad, there are religions that say love and forgiveness are the highest goods, and there are religions that say killing frogs is the best way to get to Heaven. These views can't be reconciled without a complete descent into nihilism.

I believe Whitehead's fallacy was better corrected by Wieman's Creative Interchange. Process philosophy of Whitehead has been bought and implemented by Chinese Educational system, to the detriment of both Chinese and the globe. If MacGilcrist had been presented Wieman's continuous evolution, he may find a closer theological expression for his neurological discoveries.

A word salad of completely untestable, arbitrary and totally unnecessary hypotheses.

Reality = That which is/That I am. That which is, that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential). 0. Potential = Being 1. Actual = Becoming (actualized) Since that which is not, is not; That which is, is all-inclusive: Absolute, Infinite, Eternal. The potential for actualization is Infinite, and the actualization of potential is Eternal, because only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity. We actualize potential by dreaming our experience (rehearsing the future), and experiencing our dream. Ultimately, the most significant choice we make at any moment of the day, is between unconscious compulsive reaction and conscious creative response.

It's so comforting to be in a post-Dawkins/C.Hitchens/Harris era. Now, let's put the neo-fascist Schwab and WEF and their useful idiot Woke into the dustbin of bad ideas. Thanks be to God.

Thank you for such a comprehensive, accurate, respectful and succinct precis of two extraordinary and formidable philosophers in relation to the most profound and vitally important topic == the sacred, the basis of all life and reality. Thank you !

Just a tribute to a polymath who combines quantum theory, biology, neuroscience, literature and phiosophy into one vortex. I know he doesn't really approve of structured religion and theology. I decided on that nearly 40 years ago and do not regret it. The consitutions of Vatican II finally overturned the appalling "long 19th century" of Pio Nono and gave us oxygen to think. An epideictic dialogue, not anathemata.

In a recent Q&A with members of channel McGilchrist, he, McGilchrist, stated he tended towards a feudal system of social organization. He has studiously avoided social philosophy for as long as I have been following him(I purchased my copy of TMAE in 2015) so I was surprised by his saying that. I was not surprised by the content only the fact of his stating that preference. The relationship of the individual to society is just as much a valid area of philosophy as the relationship of the individual with her God. Cultures that have embraced Buddhism and have become collectivist still have trouble with that relationship. I would really like to see a panel discussion with Elaine Pagels, Brian Victoria and Dr. McGilchrist. I know many people say that if everyone is enlightened then we will have the perfect libertarian culture. Any thoughts along those lines?

I see nothing in Mcgilchrist's process theology which is in conflict with Catholicism's core tenets. Christianity is perhaps unique in positing a divinity which is a profound relationship: Father, Son and (from their love) the Holy Spirit. A divinity that decides to become humanly immanent by the incarnation. Reading him has hugely informed my understanding of creation and a theological explanation of evil. In creation a long process is set in motion that eventuates in human beings who begin to be able to glimpse the divine, with a clear purpose of knowing the divine better, but of remaining free. Within our brains and our very cell structure, we are gently nudged to partake of and commune with the divine. We are not forced.

As one master long time ago suggested in a metaphor: “Cast your net to the right...”

I have a quick question: Does Whitehead mean that we live in a “pixelated” world? That these “actual occasions” are discrete events, even though they are interdependent? Is there no true continuity in the world, but more like a film reel of discrete unchanging pictures interconnected to give the illusion of change? Thank you in advance if I get any response.

The Council of Nicaea was an ecumenical council of Christian bishops held in the city of Nicaea, in what is now modern-day Turkey, in the year 325 AD. The council was convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in order to resolve a number of theological controversies that had arisen within the Christian church, most notably the Arian controversy. The Arian controversy centered around the question of whether Jesus Christ was fully divine, or whether he was a created being. The Arian position held that Jesus was a created being, while the orthodox position held that Jesus was co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father. The Arian position, also known as Arianism, was a theological belief that emerged in the early Christian church, named after its founder, Arius of Alexandria. The Arians believed that Jesus Christ was a created being, rather than being co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father. Arius and his followers argued that, although Jesus was divine, he was not fully equal to God the Father. They believed that Jesus was the first and greatest of God's creations, but that he was not divine in the same sense as the Father. They saw Jesus as a kind of intermediary between God and humanity, rather than as an equal member of the Trinity. This belief was based on a particular interpretation of scripture, particularly passages that refer to Jesus as the "Son of God" and suggest that he was subordinate to the Father. The Arians believed that the term "Son of God" meant that Jesus was a created being, rather than being of the same substance as the Father. The Arian controversy was one of the most significant debates in early Christianity, and it was ultimately resolved in favor of the orthodox position at the Council of Nicaea, which affirmed that Jesus was co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. However, Arianism continued to be a significant theological belief among some groups of Christians for several centuries after the Council of Nicaea. At the Council of Nicaea, it was primarily the bishops who ruled in favor of the orthodox position that Jesus was co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. Among the most influential of these bishops were Alexander of Alexandria and his young deacon, Athanasius. The Emperor Constantine, who had convened the council, also supported the orthodox position and used his political influence to help enforce it. The Nicene Creed, which was adopted at the council, declared that Jesus was "begotten, not made" and was "of one substance with the Father". This creed became the standard of orthodox Christian belief on the nature of Jesus and has been widely accepted by Christians ever since. Establishing the orthodox point of view at the Council of Nicaea would have had several potential benefits for Emperor Constantine. Firstly, by promoting a unified understanding of Christianity, Constantine may have hoped to stabilize the empire and prevent religious divisions from leading to further conflict and instability. This was particularly important given that Christianity was becoming increasingly popular and influential in the empire, and disagreements over its core beliefs threatened to tear the community apart. Secondly, by aligning himself with the orthodox position, Constantine could have strengthened his political power and authority over the church. The emperor had long sought to exert control over the church and its leaders, and by supporting the orthodox position, he could position himself as a defender of true Christian doctrine and use this to strengthen his own authority. Finally, by establishing a clear and unified understanding of Christian doctrine, Constantine may have hoped to foster greater loyalty and support among the Christian population. Christianity was becoming increasingly important in the empire, and by aligning himself with the orthodox position, Constantine could have garnered greater support and legitimacy among Christian leaders and followers. Meaning, the Trinity is bologna. Man made creation for political power by the catholic church and Constantine the emperor. HASHEM IS ONE. PERIOD.

Does panentheism necessarily lead to process theology? Also if you're indicating mutual inseparablity are you advocating for eternal matter?

"In other words, just as,† for some purposes, one atomic actuality can be treated as though it were many coordinate actualities, in the same way, for other purposes,† a nexus of many actualities can be treated as though it were one actuality. This is what we habitually do in the case of the span of life of a molecule, or of a piece of rock, or of a human body. This extensiveness is the pervading generic form to which the morphological structures† of the organisms of the world conform. These organisms are of two types: one type consists of the individual actual entities; the other type consists of nexūs of actual entities." [PnR Part IV] So "organism" is not directly synonymous with "actual entity". Some organisms are actual entities, while others are nexuses of actual entities which (as he explicates elsewhere) are unified by a form of social order. Actual entities are inextricably atomic, while organisms are not.

Very accurate summary of McGilchrist's life-transformative work, which I've just finished reading. Will forward this video to anybody wanting to get into his work.

I'm evidently misunderstanding something. I find the process-theology God so puny and contemptible in comparison with the God of classical Christian theism, and completely unworthy of worship or even of respect.

I don't get it. What is it about MacGilchrist's understanding of brain hemisphere lateralisation that aligns with process philosophy?

Hey thanks for this. Just a wee thought coming through for me. It seems that Iain McGilchrist plays the paradox game sometimes and other times leaves it alone (if I can put it so crudely). So the idea of Iains and process theologys', as I understand it, goes something like; we are co-creating with God and god with us in an emergent cocomposition that is both immanent and transcendent? I am wondering why McGilchrist doesn't make the paradoxical move and include both the process theological move/view AND the New Testaments incarnation crucifixion resurrection and revelation move. An emergent AND a superdetermined model if you will, inter and intra-acting with one another. I believe Valentin Tomberg might have been on this trajectory with his 'Meditations on the Tarot'. Taking into account the immanent becomings of Bergson alongside church fathers Christisn mystics and the being of CHRIST at the centre and periphery and nowhere in between. Thanks for the sharing. Much love.💚

This is very good stuff! I'm pleased McGilchrist is being taken seriously within process theology. I feel a greater emphasis on personhood as an emergent quality growing in the interplay of being and becoming (Buber) is helpful. I'm thinking about Bonhoeffer's ideas of personhood extended in time resolving the Act and Being instability.

Oh, progressivism rules everywhere! God is evolving like the monkey-man evolved into a homo sapiens sapiens..... and behind the scenes it is Man, of course, who is pulling God into consciousness.....! Save your breaths, good people, and go back to your drawing boards!

12:00 they want to steal and pollute to market for their hidden gods, similar to Vervake the thief and many other thieves they are working on stealing and polluting human thoughts to market for their hidden gods!