Sam Harris, consciousness & the transcendent, Jonathan Pageau & Jordan Hall
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 10. 2019
- What is the relationship between consciousness, religion & reality? Jonathan Pageau has a theory based on the phenomenology - birds-eye view - of consciousness itself.
Jonathan is a celebrated icon carver and religious thinker. Jordan Hall is a philosopher and futurist.
In this conversation they discuss consciousness, Sam Harris, parenting & religion.
Jonathan Pageau's channel, the Symbolic World, is here: / pageaujonathan
To get access to more exclusive content and to join this evolving conversation, become a Rebel Wisdom member: www.rebelwisdom.co.uk/plans
You can listen to a podcast versions of our films on Spotify or Apple Podcasts by searching 'Rebel Wisdom' or download episodes from our Podbean page: rebelwisdom.podbean.com/
We also have a Rebel Wisdom Discord discussion channel: / discord
Both Jordan and Jonathan are so insightful. This is such a rich dialogue! Thank you gentlemen.
Thank You John for Your brilliant insights! Hope to see a tri-logue amongst the three of you at some point, now that you've all spoken to each other one-on-one~
Just realized: if the conversation actually happens (let's pray), it's going to circle around the "J"
namely, Jordan, Jonathan and "Johny V" are going to Jolt each other awake from (the chaos of) the meaning crisis, as symbolized, of course, by the Joker~
Johnny V in the house! Love your work, sir. Glad to see Jordan Hall appreciates your continued effort as well.
John Vervaeke I’m only on your second vid. So as they say, catch you on the other side.
They moved on from discussing Sam after 5 mins, I assume because there wasn't enough there to snack on...?
“Many parents PRE-tend to AT-tend...”. (~13:50). Ouch, that hit home. That’s going to stay with me. It’s a spiritual practice to attend and listen closely to my children, and not do the “smile and nod.” So grateful Jordan made that comment.
for anyone interested here is the rumi quote Jonathan referenced.
“Your grief for what you've lost lifts a mirror up to where you're bravely working.
Expecting the worst, you look, and instead, here's the joyful face you've been wanting to see.
Your hand opens and closes and opens and closes.
If it were always a fist or always stretched open, you would be paralyzed.
Your deepest presence is in every small contracting and expanding, the two as beautifully balanced and coordinated as bird wings.”
― Rumi
Thanks for the full quote Kathryn
Wow. What a conversation! Three of my absolute favorites. Hall, Pageau and Rebel Wisdom. Thank you so much! This is where its happening.
Lmao.. Jordan Hall's first sentence is so eye-roll inducing it's hilarious, but it's also brilliant... That's why I love him 🤣❤️
Instantaneously hyper-meta 😂😂😂
So glad this is here. Thanks Pagaeu and Hall!
Great conversation. Thank you guys for putting it out. At 1 hour 10 minutes Jordan really drops a an amazing insight and question which will keep you thinking for a while. Jonathan pageau really does a wonderful job of reminding us where we came from. Modernity has such a biest against the past and it's wonderful to hear clean articulation that brings the past into the discussion in a way that's fruitful.
The discussion of transcendence at multiple levels (1:01:30) cracked me up, because I was sitting there thinking: "Now, how in the world is this any different from the concept of emergence?" Then Jonathan goes, "people call it emergence because they don't like the word transcendence." :joy:
But I absolutely agree: I've said before, I hear people use the word "mystery" or "transcendent" in the exact same places that secular, complex systems types use the word "emergence." And I do think it's simply a difference of prioritizing bottom-up or top-down, when both are occurring.
And that leaves me at a loss as to why people like David Bentley Hart and others make such a fuss about picking on the concept of emergence as some sort of cop out. How is it any more of a cop out than"meaning," "transcendent form," or "mystery." Is it not simply a different grammar aimed at the same phenomenon? I think it's exciting that people from very different worldviews are converging on this phenomenology. As a relative outsider to both worldviews in terms of "official" membership, I see them as being essentially the same. It feels to me like the arguments to diminish the validity of the other perspective are a sort of mimetic rivalry between doubles, where I have to attack the thing I'm most similar to. Emergent Phenomena and Forms are Cain and Abel in my book.
Can someone help me understand why emergence is a cheap concept, if you think it is? Because I simply can't get the objection to it.
TL;DR: Why can't we agree that the emergent and emanant are two sides of the coin of Being: Earth, Heaven...Matter, Psyche...etc.
The thing is that those who 'explain' consciousness as simply emerging from matter have not explained anything whilst failing to recognize the magic.
@@UNaMon pethaps a simpler analogy to draw between the emergence & transcendence distinction is this: the former is the internal experience of spirituality, whilst the latter is the external experience, expression, (or conjoinment) of it -- with a person, a community, with nature, a faith, a philosophy, an ethos or logos.
And here you could easily define spirituality as reverence, appreciation of, & a deeper understanding of something.
This was one of the most needed conversations. Thank you gents!
Immediately stopped what I'm doing and clicked on this video with that title and Hall and Pageau
"Is that the hill to die on, then?"
"Yeah, maybe."
Which brings us, children, to Revelation, Chapter 1...
It's been so cool to see how these videos have re-hashed ideas brought forward in previous talks but then take a step or two forward in building on them
Really appreciate what Jordan was able to do at the end there. Decimating potential dogma into neutralism while maintaining the same degree of quality. Great talk!
Insightful conversation - really liked Jonathon's emphasis on bottom-up (emergence) and top-down (emanation) processes not just meeting in a mechanical fashion in the middle. They penetrate each other ( JV's word in Ep.41) and Jordan almost alludes to a similar thing when at the beginning he drops the phrase "going higher - or deeper" , depending on the perspective.
The two running together, supporting each other, has come alive for me personally as I started to say the Rosary recently. The intercepting lines from the Bible are like vivid snapshots of the everyday reality of Jewish life at the time of Jesus while the constant repetition of "Hail Mary" is like a parallel reality of the " emanation" from a divine source. Hope this makes sense....!
BeTheLight great connection.
About time you guys had Pageau back on! Great news!
One of the best videos I have seen on the subject. Well done. Thank you David Fuller. I have never been a big fan of Jordan Hall's jargon but this to me at least presents another side of him, and Jonathan Pageau is able to interface well with him and speak in a manner I am more comfortable with. His discussion of the incarnation of the transcendent is spot on. I have never heard a priest or theologian express it better. it is almost Hermetic.
Particularly impressive was Jordan Hall's recognition near the end, of the practical reality of the world where vast numbers of people are fully embedded in religious traditions and belief systems. Any project that wishes to speak to the entire human race must take this into account. I think that some of these discussions forget that.
Hall suggests that the Catholics and Protestants must finally bury the hatchet, a beautiful sentiment on its own. But knowing some of the inner workings of that myself, I know that hill that Jonathan speaks of is really steep, let alone the hill that divides Jonathan's chosen Orthodox faith and the rest of Christianity.
And when we think beyond Christianity to Islam and the Buddhists and Hindus and all of the subdivisions of those, it is small wonder that sandbox Sam and others like him throw up their hands and say, "a pox on all their houses."
Yet that will not do.
I am reminded of David Fuller's interview with Douglas Murray, wherein Murray suggests it would be the perfect time to start a new religion. I know how the apocalyptic strain of Christians would react to that notion, or even to the idea of creating peace between all of the existing religions, were it possible.
Perhaps that is the purpose of the atheists of this world, to shame the religious into sensible co-existence.
Science, and that includes psychology, persists in attempting to separate the material from the spiritual. It is possible to distinguish the material from the spiritual, it is however impossible to separate them. Those who know Mr Pageau will notice this movement and RW are to be commended for finally showing courage in having a Christian providing wonderful insight. I believe RW has exhausted the esoteric eastern mysticism tradition and hopefully this is the start of RW exploring their own western roots. Ne Timeas.
Has anybody ever seen Jordan Hall and Greenhall together in the same room? They look and talk EXACTLY the same:)
"Re-member so as not to Pretend"
Stay integrated and close to the Tao.
Breath out.
Thoroughly enjoyed this and it is a conversation i can come back to many times i feel.
Thank you.
Haven't watched it but I'm excited! These two guys are my favorite!!
I really enjoyed all of the talk about parenting. From my perspective, parenting isn't just a spiritual path, the experience of being a parent is _the_ natural spiritual path for humans.
no such thing as spirituality, thats just a word that is undefined by people that use it as a something i better than a no thing. So a soul is better than a natural biological evolved person that is material though awe inspiiring but just material. the yearning for something more is deluded by religious sentiment the heroin that says yes we have that thing you look for. Religion prays on inquisitive minds about truth reality and fills it with the superstition of ill conceived old age thought made worthy by natural evolution.
@@quinnishappy5309 Nihilism. Enjoy!
@@konberner170 Im not a nihilist im a realist. enjoy
Quinn IsHappy so you do believe life has some greater purpose or meaning?
Good talk you guys. This one's going into my saves.
Thank you. What came up for me was to re-cover is to cover again. That is to bring back the mystery, the unknowing so that truth can be continually unveiled, a perpetual aletheia by shining the brightest lights to what has come before, and re-member, becoming part of it once more.
beautiful Oliver. thank you for sharing
!!!
Pure gold.
Wow that's pure value. Thanks!
Why would anyone ever apologize for using the word love ❤️
realitycheck1231 I live in love every day and have never run from love. I am a creator... grateful to love and create ❤️ May God bless us all
@@realitycheck1231 never heard this before.. thanks
realitycheck1231 we were conscious before we rejected real love for our own immature grasp at love
"I'm not on the outside looking in, I'm not on the inside looking out, I'm right in the motherfuckin' middle looking around."
- Kendrick Lamar
14:22 Jonathan described meditation exactly, as taught by Sam on his meditation app: "Pay attention, when you get distracted, which is inevitable, notice you got distracted, remember you were meditating and recommit your attention". But the way Jonathan describes it here sounds so much more profound
"Beautiful image of beating a double-edged sword into a plowshare." "Somebody somewhere probably thought of that first." Lol, love the biblical shout out there.
THIS is Transcendence, period!
Beautiful conversation, both had tremendously good points. Transcendence is needed, but needs (religious) identity to bind to and in order to make it scalable. But then what can bind / transcend different religious identities? Perhaps transcendence itself? Another option I can think of are specific non-propositional communal practices. Because it seems as if one of the important divides between different religious identities are certain propositional statements.
What is behind the choice to put the tablet frame around people when they are speaking instead of full screen? I have noticed that Reble Wisdom employs this editing strategy frequently.
Ethan Miller yeah, this is probably the one criticism I have of Rebel Wisdom. Just looks tacky in my opinion.
I love how meta Jordan is, not sure if it’s too meta, but he just has this ability to zoom out and latch onto some underlying theory. So creative
i'm intrigued by jordan's assertiveness in conversations and it makes me wonder what his consumable enhancements look like. i assume it has to be something beyond just the qualia stack his company makes.
Whether it's politics or psychology, we live in a dualistic reality and the idea of left and right, exposes us to the individual within us and the collective in which the individual is born. So a good life comes to those that balance between these two states of being.
23:29 being held in the relationship of the larger wholeness teaches both the larger whole and the holding of relationship through the very experience of being held
26:30 !Yes! The example of contact in generative relationship
1:11:05 How do I as an individual join the team of any AND everyone else, without abandoning myself? (Engaging in genuine relationship)
There is great seduction in opposition, because it offers stable relationships. “I’m over here on my team and you’re over there on your team, AND I know how this thing goes from there, conflict.” Or worse and even more predictable, “whatever team your on, I’m not on.” There is a catastrophic amount of security in these orientations. I am able to forever avoid my fear of intimacy in relating with you that way. I am able to keep at arms length whatever everyone not-me might teach me. I am able to deny and delay the reality of change by explaining, arguing and closing my mind.
Thank you for identifying this tension in Sam Harris's thought. It really rang true to some of my reactions to him. I think it stems from Sam's brand being the rational atheist, 3rd person obligate view. Because his insights on the usefulness of meditation are ultimately derived from religious experience, there's a fundamental tension between his argument that religions are harmful and his own use of religious experience and technique as fundamentally beneficial for his own life and, frankly, career.
arent you just praising the people who helped your biases be correct. This is very bad procedure for truth.
@@quinnishappy5309 well, it's more articulating what I've struggled to myself. My reaction to Sam might just be emotion, but it feels more like intuition. I dont think hes as deep or interesting as most but I'm more interested in examining my reactions than making truth claims.
jordan "not be to instantaneously hyper-meta" hall
Pageau: embodied knowledge, from wisdom and understanding, grounded and integrated.
Hall: performance of wisdom, self consciously using language very carefully to avoid the pitfalls that spiritual teachers have warned him of. Constantly using jargon to refer to your own thought process is tryhard spiritual seeker meme talking.
I wonder what the recently converted Hall would think of this now...
Why is it so difficult for Jonathan to Steel-man harris? He doesn't just go from consciousness to science. Its the understanding that science is that which allows us to go from consciousness to understanding the external world. Without science, you're left in your subjective experience.
Phenomenology is the study of consciousness, so saying the phenomenology of consciousness is a bit like saying the chemistry of chemicals. If there is a different definition of phenomenology, can we have a reference to this please?
Since Pageau has been talking about digital consciousness and extended electric nervous system, I have been wondering when these two will talk again! I feel like there's a convergence of interest happening there
A lot of this conversation made me remember of my own time studying George Gurdjieff and my two times under mentorship. Ultimately I was not allowed to pursue this line, but they did have specific programs, techniques, activities for developing in the novitiate the experience of "remembering yourself". This went beyond the intellectual and encompassed the "whole person". The system was supposed to lead me through private and group communication to a ''higher way of being". It was a powerful psycho-technological method that did seem to produce results of a non-ordinary kind. It just wasn't available to me, and I believe ultimately it was not as Christ - centered as I was hoping it would be. Although what G called his system was esoteric Christianity. Sometime I believe that the academic study of history only scratches the surface of the beliefs, activities, and movements that exist and have existed in the world. One of the lasting things I practiced in the 4th way was the movements and dances which in themselves as everything in this system had to do with conscious development --- consciousness. :) If one practiced in the proper spirit the system was supposed to graduate from the discovery of consciousness, developing talents, moral awareness,, and on .. .. A real hierarchy.
Good conversation.
Have you read Boris Mouravieff? He had some Interesting claims about actual sources of Gurdjieff's teachings which he choose to hide.
@@mostlydead3261
No. I haven't. There is a lot of literature around these people: Madame Blavatsky, Rudolph Steiner, L. Ron Hubbard, Aleister Crowley, Carlos Casteneda, others I may have forgotten. Are they charlatans, con men, magicians , miracle workers? A lot of it is professional jealousy, no doubt. Some of them are con artists, no doubt. After I committed to Jesus Christ I quit being so impressed by special effects, and psychic razzmatazz. I know people do have these kinds of talents and they can be taught and learned, but to what end. One lady I know that has a certain talent for foreknowledge certainly does not seek publicity and would drop me if I ever revealed her person. I find it most interesting that these characters , at least the ones we know about, seem to have appeared between the late 1800s to around 1960.
@@malpais776 That's quite an eclectic collection of writers and practitioners. I met an aboriginal on a train once, a shaman in training, who was really taken with Carlos Casteneda's writing and was on a quest to experience peyote. That was a fascinating conversation.
@@ljr6723
Yes, they can be fascinating. And those are just the "famous" ones. I don't know anything about Sam Harris, but from what Jonathan reports above I wonder what Harris means by "mystical" or "Mysterious" experience? I don't know.
34:55 "Critique of the other side". Deconstruction is societies primary mode it seems. But once you've deconstructed e.g. norms, what should take its place? No norms?
We are all integrated better into different frameworks. If they encompass our lives completely, then we depend on them. Our very words have distinct definitions reflecting what our framework is. When we talk to another, with only be a slight difference there is a natural approximation of conversation, in how words are directional, so we do not notice misunderstandings.
Regarding the polarisation. the very framework people are integrated into, compels people to have an enemy for their purpose.
For those trying to outwit, they tie their ideas to their framework, which is also their basis for feeling smarter about themselves.
People can make more sense on a different framework, from persuasive skills if they are close enough in frameworks. However, the growing chasm developing between the 2 sides, means that words however skilled is not becoming greater than the other's own thoughts.
We distinguish the people rising above the conflict, which for the audience I shall take as us.
It is true the rather centrist politics, and a wide scope of idea exposure on the channel has a natural breadth of our framework, and political disdain.
However, for all my effort I can't both undo the framework that binds a person and get my point across with words.
In terms of finding a balance for identity, as soon as a community clearly defines something as good, there is an exaggeration towards it.
Seeking a transcendent identity? Maybe, but people need to transcend, then dive back in the mud and pull other people out. I get the feeling that too much transcendence and they'll choose to escape all this political BS... so there's probably some optimum balance of forces. It's going to be one heck of a complicated identity to get right.
I can't quite see how communication across the division will work yet. I'm hoping I can keep learning stuff and it'll all become clear. But agape love which others name god does seem necessary as a binding agent.
I think your conclusion is right. Something I have noticed more and more is the absence of common frame in most socio-political arguments. The common frame is that transcendent thing they are talking about.
One of the things I have always liked about the sport of hockey (not exclusive to it) is the handshake line at the end. That reinforces the common frame, the league, the game itself.
There was a time when the equivalent was present in politics and the various institutions structured deliberately to foster opposition to create a proper resolution, in the courts for example.
Pageau points out that this dialectical model has scaled out beyond the frame and Hall says that it was inevitable.
it is the search for a new frame that is the point of the Rebel Wisdom project I think. Interesting that Pageau and Hall agree in principle on what that frame has to be. It has to be embodied and scaleable and come forth naturally from our own psyche and nature. Agape is as good a description as any.
@@ljr6723 Yep. Ritual binds our commonality, and a handshake in a sporting event, is still untrammeled. I feel to recombine all, we need the acceptance of multiple interpretations of what some will view as the same here others might claim are opposites. The binding of that system has to be stronger than the forces that will try to pull it apart. This requires 1) people with high interconnective wisdom, 2) the ability to transmute that to others, which will require a diversity of perspectives, because of how convincing works. 3) until we pass the crescendo point where it will naturally be, high resilience.
I feel we're slowly getting there. How fast, and whether we're in line for some unexpected turns along the way, we'll see.
For the Hockey example, it seems the rituals have more relevance if the ritual is in high contrast to its accompaniment. The high competition and aggression is stabilized by the handshaking.
It might be that all meaningful rituals are this way. However as people have different framings of their inner-conflict, it's unclear which rituals are meaningful to all in that space.
What I’m hearing from them both, Jonathan - rebuild the past, Jordan - create the future.
15:03 Re-membering!
Pageau no.1 slept on IDW boi
44:00
“The suburbs and the television are part of the same machinery”
Foundationalist epistemology is dead since Godell, but some are just too stubborn to accept it: Change my mind.
18:20
It's generally a good idea to bother grasping the work of the person you're talking about, comprehensively, before talking at length about their ideas. Experience a vippassana retreat and dip your toes into the depths of meditation practise and you will find the practise is very scientific at its core. Pure empirical observation. Religion is almost antithetical to that. Religions like filling peoples minds with the truth before they have the opportunity to discover for themselves, and if they do discover something it will always be interpreted into religious terms. Most strains of Buddhism, in particular the original teachings are explicitly anti-dogmatic, anti-presuppositional. Honestly I think unless you have some practise that specifically cultivates attention, concentration and mindfulness, you run the risk of talking about consciousness all day with having said anything.
I say this only because Pageau seems weirdly surprised or blindsided by the fact that Sam easily moves from descriptions of consciousness from a meditative framework, to a scientific one. It shouldn't be that surprising.
Attention and intention.
If you frame sentient life as all coming from one source. That we are all manifestations of a one, then doesn’t it ask the question.
Are we meant to be unified?
Are we meant to be in
coherence? Are we not all fractured, unique manifestations of a one for a reason? Perhaps the desire for coherence is romantic not progressive. Maybe we’re meant to all be as splintered as possible?
Danny J Quinn my thoughts are that if it’s useful and meaningful. So far on the balance ‘splintering’ does not seem to be doing anything but causing harm.
Kindling is useful for starting a fire but if you obsessively make the wood into smaller and smaller pieces then it becomes counter-productive for the actual goal. Keeping warm, cooking food, gathering around the warm hearth and doing so before you run out of energy and start to freeze and starve. Practicality, usefulness, togetherness and tending basic needs. 😊
The problem with the structure of Christianity is you have God who has total authority, then you have below god, the powerful, who supposedly have contact with god and pass on his will (insert the will of the powerful) which tends towards exploitation of those below. There needs to be some internal rule which says god speaks to all, not just the powerful.
20;00
Click bait
It would be nice if having an inner dialogue with things like water, air, earth, fire, wood, metal, ether, etc., were seen simply as the transcendent. I appreciate the individual, and I appreciate identity too, it is important. However, as I see it, identity, meaning and purpose must be derived with the help of nature or understood as such. Even if it has a mystical quality or character, go with that. Humans must cultivate identity alongside nature/natural world somehow and even the most deepest dwelling urban multi-generational city slickers among us can do this. Nature offers so much, the natural world and it's environment offers infinite possibilities, so many variance. Believe it folks, even the most cave-dwelling gamer-types among us will discover this. Try integrating yourself, your life or daily habits, with myth (because even Hercules would get up in the morning, make his bed, clean up after himself and move around for 20 minutes before going to work everyday) if nothing else comes to mind or when gardening, skiing, walking, yoga, tai-chi, painting, meditating, playing music, mountaineering, reading, art, career, thinking, surfing, biking, cooking, etc., etc. is not enough and just doesn't appeal to you. The natural world is the transcendence.
I’m a repeat offender. The third or fourth time I watch the ads and laugh my ass off
Sam and Jordan agreed that religion has very useful stuff in it, and also very dangerous stuff. What they never covered is the key question: How do we differentiate the useful from the dangerous?
That's easy enough, at least from the Christian perspective. Jesus said it to his disciples about the Pharisees, "do what they say, not what they do."
Have you ever noticed that the most evil things that nominal Christians did and do in the name of Christ throughout the history of Christendom were actually in direct violation of the teaching itself?
That, of course, begs the question of what good is the teaching if nobody follows it.
But on the practical side, the entire notion of universal human rights is derived from it. It took a long time, but that was the root.
@@ljr6723 My view is that Lao Tzu and Confucius talked plenty about these things long before Jesus was born. I consider myself a Christian (reformed Judaism), Taoist, and Buddhist (reformed Hinduism), however, so this isn't a problem for me. My answer to the question is that "we" cannot differentiate this in the sense of there being fixed rules about what is good and bad. As it says in the Dao De Ching, written about the 6th century BC, and very unlikely to have been influenced by any Western source,
"30
Whoever relies on the Way in governing men
doesn't try to force issues
or defeat enemies by force of arms.
For every force there is a counterforce.
Violence, even well intentioned,
always rebounds upon oneself.
The Master does his job
and then stops.
He understands that the universe
is forever out of control,
and that trying to dominate events
goes against the current of the Tao.
Because he believes in himself,
he doesn't try to convince others.
Because he is content with himself,
he doesn't need others' approval.
Because he accepts himself,
the whole world accepts him.
"
If you look at something like Jordan Peterson's Self-Authoring approach, the point is not to answer the question for "we". The point is to answer this question for "me". When all "me"s have answered this question, then it will have been as answered as it can be. Nobody can give this answer to another, because it has to be earned within.
@@konberner170
"The Master does his job
and then stops.
He understands that the universe
is forever out of control,
and that trying to dominate events
goes against the current of the Tao.
Because he believes in himself,
he doesn't try to convince others.
Because he is content with himself,
he doesn't need others' approval.
Because he accepts himself,
the whole world accepts him."
Absolutely.
I have been of that opinion for some time. But you do realize this stops the project under discussion before it begins. Unless I have misunderstood, the point has been a certain universality. The discussions between David Fuller and Jordan Peterson have touched usually on the shadow of the individual first before touching on the collective shadow, but the concern is for society and the future is it not?
Undergirding all of this is a vision that everything is going to hell in a hand cart and some sort of course correction is imperative. Without intending to be insulting I would say it feels like a group of missionaries in search of a religion. Being a seeker is not a bad thing, but this is far from the paradigm described in the Dao De Ching above.
I don't personally believe there will ever be anything like a universal salvation. Not because it is withheld, but because it is rejected or ignored.
That truth, as you rightly point out, has been around for a very long time. It is reiterated in Christian teaching and some have used it to construct a doctrine of exclusivity, something that the Hermetics were falsely criticized for much earlier.
There is also a great truth that there are many would will not find the answer for their "me" because they don't seek it and see no need to seek it. Their lives are completely filled with the concerns of the day and they are content to apply themselves to that. Who are we to disturb them? Seriously.
But of course that is a good argument for the governance of the elites.
@@ljr6723 While it does stop the discussion of if "we" can determine what is good and bad as far as proving it, it doesn't stop the discussions that I think are more important: 1) how can each of use evolve our own self-awareness e.g. the self-authoring and such? 2) given that we cannot prove what is good and bad to others, how do we use our own growing sense of good and bad into our relationships (sometimes called political philosophy)? 3) can we shed light on the clearly negative, even if we cannot delineate every nuance of the positive? For example, pushing and forcing others who are acting peacefully? Can we not start by agreeing that this is clearly not loving?
I think it is possible to REFUTE that governance by elites can be loving (due to consent being essential to love), without defining exactly what IS loving.
So this is a good point you are making that I am limiting the discussion by these thoughts, but I think this opens new realms of discussion that are more central and less in obvious conflict with beautiful teachings like the Beatitudes of Jesus (which are clearly related to the quote above as well as Buddhist teachings).
There is a place for discussion around consilience in religion, and a place to point out that socialism, leftism, and any essentially authoritarian human structure, seems to be obviously incompatible with the core spiritual teachings of the ages.
It is quite shocking to me to hear these people speak as if they are talking about love and togetherness and then supporting authoritarian schemes in the next breathe... I could be wrong, but I interpret this as a lack of shadow integration... they are trying to be loving, but have yet to see any substantial portion of their own power fantasies and tyrannical urges.
The liberal enlightment worldview in many guises wants to jump from the individual unmediated to a universal. Other more group oriented outlooks (both the conservative religious and even the postmodern narrative turn) are more willing to contemplate the role of particular forms as mediators.
"Simulacrum" - Jean Baudrillard's worldview is becoming horribly real.
Here's one possible integral theory analysis: The interpretations in this video looks like pre-trans fallacy number two. They are saying that religious practices are trans-rational when they are mostly pre-rational. I think Sam Harris was acting as an Orange gatekeeper to stop Peterson (Blue) from making that same mistake. But because all three in this video are attached to interpreting the pre-rational as trans-rational, they misinterpret Harris's actions. You have to accept Orange truth before you can truly rise higher, but Peterson was unwilling to let go of his attachment to the lower to give space for the higher to be revealed.
Excellent! Well said! These guys should engage with wilbers deeper work. It is a tragedy that people get a skim of quadrants and levels and think thats all wilbers about. His deeper philosophy and psychological theories sort lots of this stuff out. My sense is that these two are fumbling around unnecessarily.
Perhaps Sam's rationalistic atheist brand, 3rd person obligate view is a result of his secular family upbringing and programing from a very young age. His parents may not have allowed him the natural free moving from a first person to third narrative. Consequently, when one asks him to extrapolate to metaphorical understanding, a traumatic experience of shaming by a parent or sibling triggers, and he blocks the natural progression to avoid reliving the shame. Call it the Spock syndrome, perhaps, but too much materialist rationalism may have dire consequences.
Completely confused i have no idea what they are talking about and how it relates to consciousness, None of this has anything to do with self knowledge and with out self knowledge there is no consciousness.
These guys talk about nothing. Quite literally nothing.
@@AdamSmith-de5oh Ya ive heard Jonathans stuff before and have the foggiest idea why people like his stuff.
Sounds like you landed on the wrong CZcams channel. As I understand it, they are talking about the consequences of consciousness rather than consciousness itself.
I like most of Rebel Wisdom videos, but I'm disappointed in the way you are stigmatising Sam Harris, in particular Jonathan. This is not the way to reach coherence. [edit] As I’m preparing a video response, I’ve gone in more detail to adres my concerns. I’m not planning to use it for my video as I like to tell a constructive story. So let me in all openness share my concerns here:
Jonathan is doing a lot of “Jesus smuggling”. The effect appears to happen once Jonathan reaches his end of understanding. Now, we all have our limit, but it requires self-discipline to hold your space and not start stigmatising what you don’t know / understand. For more info on the concept “Jesus smuggling”” see czcams.com/video/F4wDobqp4Y0/video.html
Let me elaborate. Johnathan begins with given a good view on the nature of hierarchies in relation to consciousness, but at 02:00 he says “it ends up looking like a religious ritual”. I would suggest to read “on intelligence” by Jeff Hawkings to better understand the nature of hierarchies in relation to consciousness. Alternativity, when you are mathematical capabel, investigate how hidden markovian layers actually work and see why deep learning is if fact all about hierarchies.
With the Jesus smuggling he does a pivot (in 10 second) to end up with claim that consciousness looks like a story. This reduces all of the phenomenological view on consciousness to scripture. This is so dangerously wrong. I would suggest to learn more from Jordon Peterson who is actually always saying “it is hard, it would take me many hours to explain the relation”. This is what I mean with self-discipline, the best way to actually reach coherence in a scientific way. We are not at all ready to articulate in 10 second what consciousness is. You need to understand profoundly the emergence of science to understand how the social fabric has influence on consciousness. If you want, read Bruno Latour “Pandora’s hope”.
Jonathan really start stigmatising Sam at 04:28 “at least is seems he had mystical experience”. They way he adds doubt into the conversation is unacceptable. In “waking up” Sam is clearly elaborating that experience. The difference: it was a natural experience of spirituality and not a religious one (i.e. restricted to culture). Sam is taking a very humble stance after that experience, a more colourful follow up of “waking up in nature” is given by Terence Mckenna and a more scientific response is given by Paul Stamets. Note both man clearly elaborate there moment of waking up (Terence in the jungle, Paul during a lighting storm).
Jonathan keeps stigmatising, at 5:17 “Sam jumps to science i.e. analytic mode, which is an alienated mode … looking at the world in a flat way”. In my perception this is hate speech to science and not at all what I take out of 8 hours of debate between Sam & Jordan. Btw, I have a strong impression this video only addresses the 2h in Londen. Note, this is only 5 min in the video, it sadly keeps going on like this.
To give a positive response to this science bashing, I would suggest to Jonathan to read a lot more about how monks during the Middel Agens discover how science and mathematics is a clearer and more direct way to reach God. In popular culture the opposite examples are well know, but it is a narrow view on what actually happend from a collective view, reaching the Enlightenment. Even contemporary, many scientists have a relation to God. One of the best know quotes is Einstein saying “God does not play Dice”. You can find contemporary examples at e.g. SAND: czcams.com/users/scienceandnonduality
I do need to admit you find little English literature to the actual facts of history. As I’m living in such a historical place (Mechelen) it is easier to know about the emerging phenomena from our local culture. I can however suggest some good related literature on the history of technology, like “The Lever of Riches” by Joel Mokyr. He elaborates how the seed of the Industrial revolution is to be found in the Benedictine rule. (Although locally they would argue Cistercians rule is more accurate then Benedictines rule)
Alternativity, you can start a dialoge with me to get a step closer to coherence by resolving the issues I can contribute.
I liked a lot of this but disagree with what Jordan says at the end. There is no need to convert the entire world to our belief system. Some degree of conflict is inevitable anytime identity exists and identity must exist. There’s no need to extrapolate that out to a world most of us will never contact.
Ummm too many big words!!! My inner city education limits my vocabulary ... I'll start it over and try again...
Crow Turningbull maybe you and I could chat sometime? All words. All people.
Lots of literal hand-waving around 52:20 about the "structural element that has a vastness". Which is a reasonable description of every authoritarian structure ever imposed on humans. Then the statement "it just has to happen". So if someone doesn't want it to happen (e.g. be required to support someone who is infirm regardless of how corrupt and undeserving that person is) you are going to do what to them? My point? Where is explicit consent and personal agency in these notions? Seems to be gone.
I like Jonathan's talking about love and a transcendent center (and agree with this), but this tendency to always skip over agency and go toward claiming that the structure must be imposed is revealing. He then said he doesn't see another way it can work. Well, there are political philosophers who spent their life answer this question e.g. Robert Nozick in his _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_ . There are other ways than a vast structure that doesn't seem much different from Big Brother based on what was said here. It just puts _your_ idea of what is good in place of Big Brother.
Hi Kon
@@F--B Hi. What do you think? Do you think socialism is more loving than capitalism? That imposed structures are more loving than voluntaryism? That taxes are more loving than charity? Do you see the tyrannical elements in leftist thinking and find it even more disturbing when these notions wear a mask of love and compassion? Is it possible that the appeal to moderation--that the golden mean between socialism and capitalism is ideal--is as wrong as the idea that the golden mean between rape and making love is the ideal? Is seeing the shadow of power and dominance in socialist schemes an important part of spiritual growth?
@@konberner170 Do children have agency? What is the role of the parent in respect to the child? Is a degree of authoritarianism written into the parental role? Why do we dominate children?
@@F--B My children have agency. I help them to be the best person they can be by responding to who they actually are and never imposing my own mind on them, so long as they are not harming themselves or others (physically). When they are adult, I lose the right to stop them from harming themselves, because at that point it is between them and God. There is protectiveness in the parental role, but no authority... God made me and my children, and only God's authority is valid in my eyes. I don't dominate children. (well... I do, because I am not perfect, but no part of that is from God, but from my own confusion).
More questions?
@@konberner170 What sorts of decisions do you make on behalf of your children, and why? What gives you the right to make those decisions? Why can they not decide for themselves?
The idea that decentralized medicine is super expensive is false. Where were you shopping when you bought this notion? Look at the story of LASIK eye surgery for how the price dropped massively when it was decentralized. Also look at vaccinations and other basic care given at drugstore chains recently. I'd guess what is happening is the implementation of forced redistribution of resources is what is massively expensive (not surprising as force is always expensive), and that you are confusing this with decentralized medical care.
Jonathan completely failing to grasp Sam's position.
Harris and Bret Weinstein must step up their game or get out of the way and let more profound, more intelligent thinkers like Pageau, JBP and Vervaeke continue the conversation. At this point Harris and Weinstein are just too limited and backwards in their approach to reality
Back?
Jordan Peterson explicitly says once you get your room in order, then you work on your family and if you accomplish that, move on to your community. Criticize him all you like. No one is right about everything, but criticizing his actual stance would help. Actually listening to him might help you formulate less ignorant criticisms.
Yours is a high openess, bucko.
To elaborate on JP's point about the revolutionary spirit --- certainly the revolutionary, emancipatory trend that can be traced back at least to the enlightenment is what most defines western society today.
But, I think we are seeing the tail end of that trend unwind currently, in such a way that our society actually expresses the opposite. Everyone is so keen to be a revolutionary, a kind of faux-revolutionary posture has become the new establishment standard, and the few genuine revolutionaries are all followers of Edmund Burke (or JP, patiently carrying centuries old artistic traditions, like a tiny bubble on a tidal wave of chaos). It's a confusing inversion because it's so self-contradictory --- it's evidence that the fundamental force pushing cultural cycles is far stronger than any sort of rationality or logical coherence.
Zizek does a great job of showing how the supposedly revolutionary civil rights movements, in their decadent phase (ie SJW stuff), are actually the engine suppressing revolution. A push for emancipation becomes a push for enslavement. The poor Marxists are still waiting for The Revolution, while the meaning of "revolution" becomes steadily less revolutionary.
Our time will be fascinating to read about a few centuries on. I just hope to get some sense of where we're heading in my lifetime.
Society has been conditioned to live a life based in a competitive nature and not conditioned to live life based in a harmonic nature.
Jordan takes way too much Qualia
Sam HarrisIs not a person to talk with or have intellectual conversation, he is jew and carry one tribal agenda as they all do . Sam is not free thinker, but rather lobbyist that forms public opinion.
Jordan seems disingenuous and unnecessarily verbose
Pageau “Religious rituals have the same structure of consciousness” - what utter nonsense. And why does Jordan Hall insist on over complicating any route to an answer that can be delivered with direct and simple speech? I am surprised RW keep giving him so much air time.
Sam Harris is a genius, Long live Richard Dawkins!
Sam HarrisIs not a person to talk with or have intellectual conversation, he is jew and carry one tribal agenda as they all do . Sam is not free thinker, but rather lobbyist that forms public opinion.