WHAT IS LIFE? #29 Tim Freke and Forrest Landry
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 08. 2024
- During my conversation in this series with Daniel Schmachtenberger, he recommended I talk with Forrest Landry … so I have done just that. This episode is definitely for philosophy geeks because I ask him to explain his ideas which I have struggled to understand.
Forrest Landry has a unique and varied background as a master woodworker, software architect, engineer, author, philosopher, mystic, researcher, and many other roles and titles. Find out more here ronininstitute.... mflb.com uvsm.com
#timfreke #forrestlandry #whatislife #philosophy #emergentspirituality #consciousness #evolutionofthesoul #danielschmachtenberger
👁 INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OF UNIVIDUALS: Join Tim for weekly discussions with his Online Community timfreke.com/I...
T!N FREKE
ℹ️ Author of 35 books, translated into over 15 languages
ℹ️ #50 Most Spiritually Influential Living People 2020, Watkins Magazine
ℹ️ 📚 Winner of Writer of the Year 2020, Kindred Spirit
💬 timfreke.com/
💬 info@timfreke.com
💬 / timfreke
💬 / timfreke
💬 / timfreke
💬 @timfreke
💬 timfreke.podbe...
❗️ TED talk: • Are We Clever Monkeys ...
❗️ New Beginning World Conference talk: • Individuals Evolving i...
❗️ What is Life? Series: bit.ly/whatisl...
Most of these comments are brilliant and I don't want to sound simplistic, but honestly, the moment when Forrest gets emotional as he explains what he is ultimately trying to come to understand, IS the very essence of what life is... Beyond words. Thanks for this Tim❣️
I agree completely
Some key points from ''An Immanent Metaphysics'' of Forrest
Choice is transcendent.
Choice is part of a triplicate of the domain of what is Real:
In order to grasp what is real we need:
Choice, causation (omniscient), change (immanente)
In every domain that it is to know in order to cover the basis we always need three concepts.
Like in language you would need to know about :
Statement (immanent)
Syntax (omniscient)
Semantic ( transcendent because it goes beyond the domain of language, like pointing to a possibility as well)
(lEx: you would need statements, as they are the units of meaningfulness, so few of them (many instances) in order to even make syntax (to make one Class) and few classes to make semantic.
A soundness concept.
Perfected hard randomness and choice have the same sort of difference
as causality and determinism has.
Choice and causation are in fact duals to one another..
In other words, a symmetry between determinism and indeterminism.
Transcendent, omniscient and immanente.
Distinct, inseparable, non interchangeable.
Like in the concept of Universe if we would want to know all about it we would need to know about those 3 primal concepts:
Creation (transcendent)
Existence (omniscient)
Interaction (immanente)
When we want to talk about one of them we have to use the other 2 of the triplicates to describe one component.
Co-emergency.
Like co-emergency also in itself if we are to describe itm needs the concept of process, and further, the concept of interaction)
The 3 modalities correspond to the axioms!
Because metaphysics explains itself and the the one that is doing the metahysicing)
Because the pattern of relationship is the same between domains, isomorphism!
Axiom 1 to omniscient, third person
Axiom 2 to immanent , first hand experience
(therefore the observer is included, and the act of ‘’metaphysicing’’ describing itself….in other words, the process of the process itself.....powerful!)
axiom 3 transcendent, second person (basis of the mediation of axiom 1 and 2)
Yep, the time is definitely upon us. Thank you so much Forrest, for sharing and expanding my mind! I feel you.
The analogy of the sapling here is palpable, in the sense of the true awe in witnessing it grow just a little bit more. Thank you 🙏🏼
I just have to add how the last five minutes really resonated with my passion for this as well!
I love this world DEEPLY, and I feel the same need to bring a new awareness to the ways we live....
There's no sufficient philosophy nor religion that has ever been able to grasp what humanity would actually come to and have to face in this moment....
Almost 8 billion of us, and a million more every five days, while the natural world that supports us is crumbling away...
I've sensed this process unfolding for probably more than half my life, so I can attest to the emotion of people finally starting to listen, and imagine someday I will shed the same tears, when I finally crawl out of my own hole and say what I know has been needed....
Thanks again for offering a space in which such a deep moment could unfold!
This is the type of what and who we need to unite our visions...as the orchestra conductors at the head of projects for our future society. I deeply believe that.
I love the conclusion of this talk. The idea that we need to become maturely divine! Wonderful!
Oh, awesome! I was waiting for this since Daniel Schmachtenberger had mentioned Forrest Landry on your show! Looking forward to tuning into this one!
Wonderful, thank you. I have not heard a more concise congruence of the Non-dual and the Trinity.
Both/And - Relationship. Symbolised in the Yin and Yang within the whole (contained)
Great conversation Thank you
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
Awesome Tim!
Thanks for sharing, and I really think this is hitting the pulse of some fundamentals that are often overlooked....
I've arrived at very similar views, through both a background in physics, and also years of self inquiry as an artist and a "truth" seeker....
I've enjoyed your conversations immensely over this past year, this one was no disappoint either!
Have you spent any time checking out the small community called "The Stoa?"
Forest has done several sessions there, and is actually the "sense maker in residence" this month, meaning there's a session each week, exploring topics deeper as we go....
It's really an excellent community; you will certainly enjoy it and find yourself in great company!
Talk to Peter (the steward) about doing a residence yourself (maybe you already have).....
You won't regret it!
I've not heard of the Stoa until Forrest mentioned it in passing in an email.
Daniel and Forrest have developed an amazing set of tools and ways of expressing extremely deep concepts. Both perspectives have helped me immensely
This was a phenomenal conversation. So glad I found your work Tim. Thank you both for this.
I am so excited to see this!!!
"these are very delicate but at the same time exquisitely strong concepts." - "these concepts are distinct but inseparable." wOw! again WoW! This is really drilling down into some serious "Primacy" and the paradox. again WOW! bind blown.
I think a whiteboard would be tremendously helpful fir this conversation. Or how about the audio plays while those cartoon drawings appear on part of the screen as you go? Seems like that would be a riot with lots of crossing out and starting over.
Thanks for sharing the valuable content, Tim. I typically enjoy your private conversations made public.
Question: what does it mean for an existing thing to have subjectivity, or its own perspective on the whole, and to be able to read or sense the other existing things, but to be without any degree of mind (not metacognition), consciousness (not self-consciousness), or intelligence?
Oh, and how does pure potentiality cause anything? How does pure potentiality begin the process of actualizing itself?
I've responded to your comment on the other page. Hope it helps.
Doing is just doing. It doesn't necessarily lead to becoming at all. Ego might tell us so but it needn't be so. Life is constant processes, forever ongoing that doesn't automatically/per se involve any form of becoming. The way I put it is that life is GES. Generating, Enabling and Sustaining. Forrest uses the 'stiff' term, 'Creation' .. I find those that swim in such waters to be declaratory without understanding the inherent processes. The Taoist idea of Ziran explains it well. It 'just happens' through self-perpetuating steps.
I wonder what you think of this explanation. czcams.com/video/fvhxTVikbos/video.html
I’ve never heard the term Ziran; sounds like autopoesis
@@MattFRox It is Chinese. It is something like 'automatic' or 'naturally occurring' :)
Hello Tim, I see that since your conversation with Daniel Schmachtenberger you have been making hay while the sun shines :-)
Daniel got me interested in this one. My take so far about an hour in - this is part of just how difficult the task then is of pinning things down that seem to be happening in these trans-subjective spaces like NDE's, machine elves, etc.. In some sense we can't even get a good peak at what the medium is and I think some of the best models are in neutral monism terms that have this sort of salt / sulfur /mercury dichotomy or objective, subjective, and interaction and it seems like Forrest is pinning his hopes for grappling with these things, or ideas of what's primary, on the interaction. Makes me wonder if Donald Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, and some of the Markovian mathematics they're working with might be interesting to him - particularly in that with Markov chains the interactions really seem primary and the nodes, if anything, just set certain kinds of limitation.
Daniel was talking about connecting you with other people as well. Do you mind sharing the names of people Daniel recommended?
Watch my channel - conversations with all of them coming up soon
If the relationship is more fundamental than subject and object then there can be also a relationship without things related. Right?
I see it 'paralogically' ... meaning the subject and object are the one in relationship. Not that relationships exist with anything relating. They all arise together.
Forest needs to explore the problems facing causation to unfuck his concept of creation (origin)
The universe came to be? I don't think so and this shows how firmly embedded standard science is in our conditioning. 'We' came to be. The bottom line is that non-existence only exists as a concept within Existence. It's a dual counter-balance to existence. 'Actual' non-existence does not and can not exist. I challenge anyone here to prove that wrong by painting the picture. That which you call nothing is always something. Naturally, we differentiate but it's all one system at core. Existence is the necessary default.
I don't know what you are referring to. I don't talk about nothing. I see the ground as Being, which by definition exists.
@@TimFreke1 It was your guest that said it. I still don't really see how Creation factors into anything. I don't think the Big Bang stands up to serious scrutiny. As I said, Existence is the necessary default and we cannot not have Existence in the purest sense. So this mention of the Big Bang is needless IMHO. Being most certainly exists, of course. He seemed to be implying that nothing and something are totally different. These who mention, 'something out of nothing' or 'infinite regression' haven't moved to the trans-rational yet. They are stuck in paradigm lock and place far too much importance on their rationality.
@@Seanus32 I wonder if there is a confusion between nothing and No-thing in the Buddhist sense.
Ground of Being - Consciousness (choose a label) is No-thing = not an object.
@@carlt570 Not in my case, no. Many confuse them, that's true.
@@Seanus32 Thanks for explanation.
I got nothing from this conversation. Forest landry’s method of communicating is totally ineffective. In many cases he was unnecessarily complex.
I normally get a lot from the idea of tim’s guests but not in this case.
His podcast with Daniel on the Neurohacker collective may be more accessible. Also his books might be easier. Are you familiar with the model of Hierarchical complexity? It states there’s different levels of complex thought and that people have a greater or lesser capacity for complex thought and they have a complexity bias towards their level. I’m not saying that your claim of him being unnecessarily complex is wrong but it might be beware of complexity bias.
@@alexandria5758 i like daniel a lot, and I read one of landrys books and discovered the same thing. Unnecessarily complex and saying nothing. I don’t see this as a “complexity bias”, Landry was just legitimately incoherent for large parts of this interview.
@@lukaswagner3858 But people like Daniel, Jordan Hall and Zak Stein really like his work and find it useful hmmm
Couldn't see the Forrest for the trees...
Well seems like thats a problem with you and not with him. Me and all the other hundreds of people commenting seem to have gained a lot from this convo