WHAT IS LIFE? #20 : A philosophical conversation with Tim Freke & Bernardo Kastrup
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2020
- Philosophy nerds will love this episode! Bernardo shares his 'Idealist' philosophy that see consciousness as the ground of reality ... and I explain why that, whilst I've agreed with that in 34 of my 35 books, I have now changed my mind.
Please note this is a shared private conversation, not an interview or a public debate. Many viewers who are supporters of Bernardo's work have asked me for more information about what I am explorer in this conversation, so I have made this short video • WHY I WAS WRONG ABOUT ... . It may also be helpful to view this talk I gave last year. • A NEW STORY OF THE UNI...
Bernardo Kastrup's work has been leading the modern renaissance of metaphysical idealism, the notion that reality is essentially mental. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another Ph.D. in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence). As a scientist, Bernardo has worked for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the 'Casimir Effect' of Quantum Field Theory was discovered). Formulated in detail in many academic papers and books, his ideas have been featured on Scientific American, the Institute of Art and Ideas, the Blog of the American Philosophical Association and Big Think, among others. Bernardo's most recent book is The Idea of the World: A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality. For more information, freely downloadable papers, videos, etc., please visit www.bernardokastrup.com
#timfreke #bernardokastrup #whatislife #philosophy #emergentspirituality #consciousness #evolutionofthesoul #idealism
T!M FREKE
👁 INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OF UNIVIDUALS
Join T!M Freke for weekly discussions with his Online Community
timfreke.com/ICU.aspx
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.podbean.com/
❗️ TED talk: • Are We Clever Monkeys ...
❗️ New Beginning World Conference talk: • Individuals Evolving i...
❗️ What is Life? Series: bit.ly/whatislifeseries
Tim we know what you think, please allow us to find out what your guest thinks.
I don't have guests John. These are private discussion made public. If you want to just know what people think, listen to the many interviews available. I am not an interviewer.
Bernardo was interrupted constantly. Uncomfortable to watch
I came here for the conversation, and am thankful. Personally I'd have steered Bernardo well out of his comfort zone, but I was happy to watch Tim be Tim.
Don't take it personally tim. Even if you are having a private discussion, you still need to interupt less and let someone you have gotten in touch with to explain their position fully rather than assuming you understand it already in the middle of a sentence. We all know you are a great guy but it's something you should consider if a lot of people find it distracting. Thanks anyways for sharing these conversations.
@@saritajoshi1737 or you could consider the fact that maybe he doesn’t need to change his style!
Enjoyed the interview! 👍
What I learnt from Bernardo: Poise, patience & resilience in conversation.
What I learnt from Tim: How to conduct a monologue.😅
That was great.
To those who have complained about the interview technique, that’s fine, you may not have enjoyed it, but they both really did, and I think it was very productive.
Tim: Although I really like the absolute simplicity of your starting point, I think it is a legitimate criticism of your view that it doesn’t explain anything. Materialists struggle to explain consciousness; Idealists make great efforts to explain the experience of a shared physical world. They each have to do this because their start points are something, something that exists and from which they seek to explain everything else that exists.
Your start point of what exists isn’t anything, it is existence, a concept, the most basic concept, but a concept not a thing. It is a bit of information about a start point, the information that it exists.
The materialist start point exists, its existence is the most basic information about it; the Idealist start point exists, its existence is the most basic information about it. Your start point is ‘it exists’. This isn’t a first thing from which to explain everything that exists. ‘It exists’ is a piece of information about something but you say nothing about the thing that exists.
You are trying to start off the existence of all that there is with a piece of information that doesn’t refer to anything. It is not an ontology. To say that your starting point is ‘it exists’ is as vacuous as saying the end point exists, or the process exists, and saying nothing more about the end point or the process. All you are saying is that there is something rather than nothing. We knew that already.
The ontologist has the job of explaining how everything that exists came from a fundamental thing that exists. Existence is information about things that exist. It is the most fundamental piece of information, and the only essential piece of information, but it is just information, a concept. It cannot be an ontological starting point.
You say there is no beginning, there is being and becoming. Again, all you are saying is that there is something rather than nothing.
Now, maybe that is the only thing we can say about existence. Maybe all attempts at reductionist ontology are games of imagination of unnecessary explanation. Maybe ‘there is something rather than nothing’ is all we can say. But to put forward existence as if it is an ontology, as if it is a starting point out of which everything emerges, that, I think, is a mistake.
I am saying the one (being) is in relationship with itself (becoming - subjective and objective being) That is the process of emergence through which life and sentience and psyche will evolve as emergent forms of subjective and objective being). I think that can be a strong ontological starting point .. no? How does assuming consciousness or matter on its own as the ground help?
Hi Tim
Really enjoying this ongoing discussion.
Every monist ontologist says exactly that; my one ontological primitive exists and everything emerges and evolves from my extant ontological primitive interacting with itself (there isn’t anything else for it to interact with).
So your statement could equally be said by an idealist or a materialist or an informationalist or a flying-spaghetti-monsterist.
What we don’t get from your statement is anything at all about what your one extant ontological imperative is.
You have provided a verbal structure within which any monist can insert their chosen ontology. You haven’t provided an ontology
@@TimFreke1 Still trying to get this clear ... Are you saying that this one 'beingness' is fundamentally in subject>
@@wanderingthepeaks Yes. I am differentiating the idea of the 'ground' from the 'source'. I see Being as the ground of existence. The primal quality. The foundation of this moment and every moment. I am not saying there was Being and one day it started to Become the universe. I have no reason to presume that happened and physics suggests increasingly that our universe was not the beginning of existence. So I do not see a state of pure Being that becomes something somehow. I suggest that existence is 'Being in the process of Becoming'... which is 'The One in relationship with itself' ... and 'The realisation of potentiality in ever more emergent ways'. Hope that helps you understand and evaluate my suggestions.
@@beherenowspace1863 For some reason I can't see all of your comment. Sorry about that. Glad you are enjoying the exploration. I am not really a Monist though ... because I am saying Being IS Becoming. So existence isn't One. It is the One in relationship with itself. Most monists wouldn't go with that. Being is my ontological primitive simply because it is the simplest omnipresent qualities of existence ... by definition of course. So that simple quality can be seen as both subjective being and objective being .. eg it is in relationship with itself ... as everything. All other complexes of qualities.
Gripping conversation! Looking forward to another with Bernardo.
WOW. This is like a callback to the conversations that happened at the agora during antiquity! We need a round two!
Love that image Iannis
Boody'el, never realised Tim interviewed Bernardo. And 3 years ago? This is a cool Christmas treat indeed
Bernardo is killing it lately. This guy is just on a different level!!!
Bernardo Kastrup is an informed and well educated man and it really shows here. He definitely seems to know what he's talking about. Sorry Tim, I have almost all of your books, I really love your works except the last one. ("Soul Story") "Jesus and the Lost Goddess" is still my favorite mystical book. I wish you did not just drop your previous philosophy, I wish you didn't change your mind. Because your current philosophy does not resonate with me.
Ozan, my sentiments too...and I too have most all Tim's books and the lost goddess is tops for me as well. (mine is highlighted to no end and falling apart literally at the seams) I've tried to stay excited with Soul Story but it hasn't captured me either as previous works have. with that said, the emergent philosophy is attractive and I will continue to explore it... big love fellow traveler!
I had a sneaky feeling that after finally seeing Bernardo on Tim's show that I would want to stop watching Tim altogether. Tim purposely avoids describing his ontological primitive, and chooses to use words like “Becoming” instead. It’s frustrating watching Bernardo point out the flaw in this thinking and having Tim try and defend it.
My ontological primitive is Being ... which actually has a long philosophical history. Being arises as subjective being and objective being because existence is the one in relationship with itself. I choose neither subjective consciousness or objective matter as the ground.
@@TimFreke1 I see. So until the relationship starts it's really quite impossible to say anything about it? Except that there is some sort of desire to "BE". Whereas to posit a consciousness at the beginning already means that it must already be in some kind of relationship to be conscious in any capacity? Trying to stick pure subjectivity at the beginning would be impossible without an objectivity too.? Am I close ? 😏
I would equate this being with consciousness as as Bernardo does, as well as with the present moment or eternal "now".
It is also worth noting that this Being isn't a thing, it is in a sense the no-thing-ness or sunyata of Buddhism.
@@TimFreke1 "Subjective consciousness" is the view of Advaita, but not of genuinely nondual traditions. In those, the subjective and objective are genuinely nondual, and "consciousness" is sometimes used to describe that primitive -- as Bernardo does.
Bernardo you are quite correct that there are those of us who enjoyed this very much
So pleased to hear this
Loved every second of this. I'm not the sharpest knife in the cupboard, but my thinking has come to the place where I realise how the questions discussed hear really matter.
I tend to favour Bernardo's takes here. Tim, I love your work but please give such valuable guests the time to flesh out their thoughts. I can't help but feel that you stymied the discussion somewhat through constant interjection. Please also bear in mind that there is a difference between Absolute Truth/actuality and concept/imagination. What 'pure being' experiences have you had in life beyond meditation?
Apologies. I thought I'd given Bernardo plenty of time at the start to explain his view before we got into the discussion. If you want to hear more just from Bernardo there's lots of videos of just him talking. In Unividualism pays a lot attention to the difference between the sensory world and the imaginal psyche. I am not actually sure that even in mediation we experience 'pure' Being because it is always in a process of Becoming. We can experience universal Being at any time though. I am experiencing it right now.
@@TimFreke1 With the greatest of respect, I beg to differ but your approach also has its merits to be fair. It allows you to instantly check what he has in mind but he did look 'thwarted' in parts. Life is a delicate balance at times. Good answer with regards to meditation. Mind is not pure being, so you saw that well. Yes, the present moment :) One question everyone I ask sidesteps but being an inquisitive chap, I'm sure you'll take it on. Ok, 'can we ever not have existence'? (I mean in terms of Absolute Truth and not as a concept because it exists as a concept within consciousness) ... Many thanks if you choose to have a stab at it :)
@@TimFreke1 You took it very well. Your apology was not required but is graciously accepted nonetheless. I guess I honed in on it because I've recently switched across to online teaching from 17 years of regular classroom teaching. Part of that transition has involved me reflecting on my talking time and letting the other ample time to talk. Ok, now to my core point. I think you know what a 'strawman' is. To strawman sb in argument. To avoid this (you don't do this, btw. Just to be clear on that), Rationality Rules (Stephen Woodford, a CZcamsr) proposed what he coins 'a steel man' :) This entails setting out your interpretation of how your interlocutor differs from you (their core arguments, basically) or how they interpret a given phrase/expression or concept. This avoid misrepresentation and potential misunderstandings. Too many talk at loggerheads/cross purposes these days. It would be nice to see you try that as I feel that some time was wasted ironing certain things out during the conversation that could have been ascertained from the outset. Respect, S
I will have to listen to this at least twice before I can fully comprehend all that is being said. All I can really say is what a phenomenally interesting discussion. Thank you for sharing this.
Wonderful. Love this discussion
Very enjoyable conversation, thanks for that! Personally I've heard Bernards ontology so many times that Tim's interruptions didn't bother me too much, but I can see how it could be frustrating for those that maybe haven't heard Bernards position before. I write this only to give a bit of feedback, take it or leave it :) Love your passion, Tim. Looking forward to round 2. Big love
I liked the interruptions and the insistence in making things ultra clear.
The conversation is interesting and has its merits but “SEMANTICS” seems to be the root of disagreement on issues that arise.
totally, I really love TIm. but his excitement got the best of him. Bernardo barely spoke. But Tim is still one of the best
YES!!!! Finally! looking forward!
After watching Tim talking to Rupert and BK, My suggestion for Tim would be Decide the role of the guest:
1. If it's a guest speaker, then don't interrupt, listen more, paraphrase.
2. If it's to have a dialogue, then be ready to agree on some rules of engagement... Decide philosophical parameters , ontological primitives etc. Be ready to be challenged. And to answer using common philosophical terms, not blanket claims and beliefs. Do not assume that the guest is wrong, just because many other people from that school of philosophy might have been wrong.
3. If it's as an audience to listen to an idea that you are very excited about, let them know.
It can be a huge emotional investment to give up something that one believed for 35 years. Reflect if it's ok if this new idea turns out to be something that others already knew, albeit using different words. Or worse, if it turns out to be incorrect. Without that openness all conversations will be contaminated because the real question will be "Who is right?" Instead of "What is true?"
P S. respect for BK for maintaining his patience
Watch the series and you’ll perhaps understand what I am doing. And it’s not a guest interview. It is private conversations made public. I know Bernardo’s position well because it is the same as mine in most of my 35 books. But I now see my arguments and his are mistaken. Unfortunately he was unable to see what I was pointing out like most idealist . But you may get it my friend because it is obvious once you see it.
PS we had a great time together 😀
Personally, I am stuck exactly where BK was. He tried to raise the question multiple times, but never got a straight answer "What are you ontologically adding to Being? Being IS consciousness with changing states" You might know the Advaita metaphor of Gold....if i shape it into a circle, we call it a 'necklace'....a smaller circle a 'bracelet'....flattened into a 'biscuit'...but they are just labels we came up with. We can argue on the labels, and I can go with your's. But ontologically it's still gold? I might give different names to the wave patterns in a lake, but ontologically its still water? So what exactly are you saying differently than BK? I am having a discussion with another friend, as we speak, to understand your view :)
@@vijayrajkamat i’m saying that the foundational quality whatever name we give, it - is not conscious. That consciousness is an emergent relationship between evolving systems that arrives with biology. I fully understand the attraction of the other view because I held it myself for decades but what interest me now is an evolutionary narrative that sees everything as formless, being becoming informed by information. It is neither Barnardos idealism, nor any form of materialism.
This is beautiful!!!! I love it, Bernardo has a lot of words in describing his theory but is never questioned in this way.
I enjoyed this so much!!!! please repeat!!
This is the one I have been waiting for! I need a beer to listen to this one so just popping out for some the good news is the shop is literally at the bottom of my garden lucky me!
Many viewers who are supporters of Bernardo's work have asked me for more information about what I am explorer in this conversation. I may be helpful to view this talk I gave last year. czcams.com/video/lxOj5KW2y5E/video.html
OMG! Tim was as dense as a black hole! I got a headache. While I know he was being genuine, he was completely unaware (unconscious) of his senseless. Bernardo had the patience of a saint. To just say being is to say nothing.
Mr. Freke, you should allow your partner in the conversation to evolve his standpoint. You very often interrupt him and talk him down.
No he shouldn't. The longer Kastrup keeps his mouth shut the better for the blades of our fans (they won't be hit by shit ).
@@nickolasgaspar9660 no, no, he really should. That wasn't a proper debate. It was an interruption process. And the longer kastrup keeps his mouth *open* the better it will be...so I disagree with your BS pretty much 100% :)
@@greensleeves7165 I don't play favorites here and I am not interested in this debate. I am just evaluating Kastup's pseudo philosophical principles behind his epistemically useless speculations. His unfalsifiable death denying ideology has nothing to do with philosophy.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 "His unfalsifiable, death denying ideology has nothing to do with philosophy." First of all, most assertions about primary ontics in philosophy are unfalsifiable in a strict sense, including the material metaphysic. My beef with hard emergence is *precisely* that it purports to be what it is not...namely an explanation of anything. Since materialism cannot explain the arising of experience from nonexperience, it is not in a position to lecture anyone about falsifiability.
@@greensleeves7165 I agree, all Metaphysical worldviews on the Ontology of reality are unfalsifiable. Materialism like any other worldview makes Indefensible assertions and this is why I am not a fan of any pseudo Philosophical worldview.
Scientific Emergence is an essential ingredient of the physical world independent from our personal beef .
Its the current Scientific Paradigm and the reason why your device and internet connection (and your whole modern life) enable you to post your non Scientific objections.
You won't find hardness or wetness or color or mind properties in a particle. They all are emergent properties of physical structures.
Science can construct frameworks describing the Necessasity and Sufficiency of a system to produce species properties . Its not magical....it's physics.
I am not represeting a Materialistic view but that of a Methodological Naturalist....the Philosophical backbone of science.
Acknowledging our limitations and avoiding unfalsifiable Metaphysical beliefs is the best thing we must do if we really want to stay rational.
This was fantastic Tim, loved the last dozen minutes or so especially, much clarity and love there, really strong job
Thank you
Keep these up, Tim! Just to reflect on your fears about people switching off halfway through - I think anyone who is interested in this in the first place will be gripped. Well, I was. I do agree with Bernardo in that the initual points need time/attention before moving onto others and I am happy to stay with it. Please consider getting him back on for a follow-up chat! Thanks :)
Yes - as it happens i just emailed Bernardo to say how much I loved him insisting on returning to where we differ before moving on. So few people think like that and seek to avoid the real underlying issues. It was so refreshing to be with someone who was up for that.
Wonderful!
Yes indeed, look forward to additional dialogues with Bernardo. you two have loads more to discuss and can't wait as you explore the imagination, soul and the evolution of Being.
One of the best episodes!
Excellent discussion and arguments from both sides. Thank you!
Thanks Tim! Really enjoyed this discussion
Thank you
A whitewater ride, a very worthy and meaningful dialogue…thanks to both of you !
IMHO Tim seems to be hung up on the misconception that a parsimonious explanation must provide the absolute simplest possible answer conceivable, which he says in this case is "Being" and nothing more, whereas Bernardo is correctly approaching parsimony as what Einstein stated to be as simple as possible *but no simpler*, meaning it needs to still offer explanatory power otherwise the solution devolves into either a tautology or a non-sequitur and leaves us still scratching our heads while being none the wiser for it. Bernardo's answer of phenomenal consciousness provides us with a framework for dealing with the hard problem of consciousness, whereas Tim's answer of Being, at least the way he was going about using it, doesn't seem to help us out at all in that domain. Tim's arguments sort of sounds like they're approaching dual-aspect monism which conceptualizes all parts of reality as having both an interiority and exteriority, and if that's the case then we can advance the discussion to how that compares with a more strict form of idealism like Bernardo's, but just saying "existence is the simplest form of existence" in order to refute Bernardo's foundation of consciousness feels like semantic obfuscation.
1st side note: the ancient Hindu understanding of the absolute ground of reality, Brahman, is represented by Satchitananada which is a trinity containing the fundamental aspects of being, consciousness, and bliss combined. You cannot have being without consciousness and vice versa, and, additionally, the most primordial form of this without the imperfections/impurities of conditioned relation is purest happiness.
2nd side note: the ancient Daoist conception of the absolute ground of reality, which cannot be named, precedes the One, which gives way to the 2, then the 3, then the many. This is a clever linguistic way to, as Wittgenstein later realized, not speak about things that are not speakable. It avoids the infinite regress of passing the buck down uncountable levels of reality, and also skips the assertion of some bedrock axiom. It just says hey the One is as far as we can conceive and what's beyond is not just unknowable, but is a category error in itself.
Accurate comment. Debate allows each side to make points that can then be challenged. However, one needs to let the other side make their point. I enjoyed Bernardo’s opening statement but the discussion couldn’t get very far after that.
Grateful that Tim has gone to the effort of pursuing this series. But it could be so much better if he would relax a little and listen a little more respectfully to the merits of the opposing viewpoint.
@hyervoltage. You could think of Kastrup's conception of universal conscoiusness as satchitananada but without the ananda! And with only base level chit! :) This is actually a serious point. Bernardo's metaphysics shares much in common with advaita vedanta, kasmir shaivism and such classical nondual traditions, being also a monistic idealism, but is at the same time radically different. Compared with such traditions, it has a very bleak view of ultimate reality. The best way to describe it might be a revamped Schopenhauer or Schopenhauer redux. It's still infinitely better than the sorry materialist orthodoxy though.
@@vampireducks1622 I still haven't read Bernardo's books so I can't comment on his complete framework, but it is definitely on the right path vs materialism like you said.
I've seen a tendency for most scholars, even those who are on the fringe and propose ideas radically different from consensus science/analytical philosophy, to still want to reduce things "down", whereas the true spiritual impetus is to reach ever "upwards". A nondual understanding may see these two ultimates (void & the All) being blurred together at the asymptotic limit, but then there's still this habit of modern thinkers to, even if implicit only, prefer the void as more fundamental over the All when trying to explain things, and they then completely remove "personality" from the metaphysical framework, maybe out of fear that re-introducing notions of Gods, deities, or spirits of any kind will cause them to not be taken seriously. I personally don't take anything seriously so that's not a problem for me!
Hi Tim. I thought you might like this Schopenhauer quote, quoted by Bernardo in a recent article of his.
“The emptiness of existence (…) finds its expression (…) in the flitting present as the only manner of real existence; in the dependence and relativity of all things; in constantly becoming without being”
Great conversation, I found it very interesting and enjoyed it enormously, thank you! 🙏😃
Tim , your intellectual position sounds very much like the ontological / Ontic argument proposed by Heidegger. Your theory of Being as the Ground for all possibility is pure Heidegger.
There definitely needs to be a part 2 to go with this. Wonderful xx
David Dibben... that would be a waste of bernardo’s time. tim is totally stuck in his story
@@heronstone I don't think you watched it properly. If you had you would have heard that Tim has in fact recently changed his mind about the story he was using. That's hardly being "stuck".
David Dibben thanks david, but i know only what i heard in that discussion
I did enjoy that; listened to it throughout the day while I was distracted and came away with
The one ether is a homunculus
So going to have to re-listen
Wow! Listened to the entire 93 minutes and I still don't know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!
After many requests from viewers of my conversation with Bernardo I've made this short video about the realisation that led me to change my mind about the foundational nature of Consciousness - czcams.com/video/NKXM2hHUESs/video.html - I hope it at least throws some light on my thinking. In love Tim
Favorite philosophers. The Great Mystery began in the slumber when feminine principle of creation, nurturing and love prodded light and sound to awaken and manifest potential. "Again, let us three be what we can be and be it it, materialize and let it be what it can become so it become conscious of us, let us be things ourselves and release potential, that which experience being becomes everything." Three together began the Great Mystery. We are that.
Bernado is tops!
I have always taken the word Consciousness to mean both Sentience and Sapients.
The whirlpool is the information!
Hi Folks - I've just released this conference presentation which may help with understanding my perspective - czcams.com/video/tDUaUfqS1Mw/video.html 'Individuals evolving into Unividuals'
Fantastic . On many point you agree , but I think Bernado really has a point for you to contemplate , that would integrate your past realisations with your current ones . That's just what I see .
Really enjoyable conversation and thanks Tim for creating such an excellence series. Have you thought about bringing Zahir Khan on your podcast? I think it would be a fascinating conversation and would open up a completely new terrain of interaction and questioning of what is life!
My favourite part so far...
Bernado: "You're not saying what it is"
Tim: "That's because it isn't anything!"
If Tim took the time to listen without incessant interruptions this conversation would have been more coherent and interesting to listen to
@@angelotuteao6758 I think that’s a fair criticism. It is because my intention was simply to engage in a lively conversation about ideas I’m already incredibly familiar with. But of course it wasn’t just a private conversation because I put it out on the Internet and that’s a different thing which I learnt from this interaction that is different from all my other conversations in this series. Bernardo and I really enjoyed it but I can see why it may not be satisfying to listeners not familiar with the ideas being discussed.
Tim you have to let the guy speak.
"Bee,Neith" the veil, we're always learning ....
Thanx for this!
You might have the concept "transjective" from John Vervaeke... (since you didn't recall where you had it from....)
That was a good discussion - though i can understand where other commentators are coming from (probably they were expecting an interview rather than a discussion). For me what you said at the end is the feeling i also get about Bernardo - he has throughly thought his arguments from the ground up and very clear about his foundations - though i am skeptical about a few things that he postulates. In re your idea, I get the feeling that you are more fascinated by where the theory leads to rather than the foundations. I can understand why that may be the case, since you clarified your motivation is more spiritual than purely philosophical. If the 'being' in your idea is similar to the Brahman i.e. the ultimate reality - I am absolutely fine if you do not want to define it in any way, because the moment you have defined it in any way it is no longer 'it' i.e. the ultimate reality. But then make it amply clear that 'being' cannot be explained in language because even if you consider it the most primordial form of consciousness (as Bernardo would claim), there is no way of either putting the idea of 'being' in language nor any way of experiencing it. But i doubt that's how you see it and that's where it becomes tricky to understand the foundations of your idea.
I suggest the ground is the simplest possible quality from which all other qualities have emerged ... and the quality everything shares is 'being'. The old Indian technique of 'neti neti' ... 'not this not that' ... leads to being not to consciousness. Being is the potential to become ... anything. If this is what you see as Brahman I can go with that. Brahman Nirguna ... God without Qualities. Literally ... no qualities except being.
@@TimFreke1 I hear you. I know where you are coming from and I can take that as a possible spiritual explanation - though the Brahman argument relies on a dualistic nature of the world with Maya (the appearance of the world) and the Brahman (which is also synonymous with Aatman in non-Advaita traditions). But, I know you are not in favour of dualism (and neither am I), but your ground for being is a fundamental reality which is quality/nature agnostic. The only problem is that the vedantic/upanishad inspired idea is a very tough concept to explain in a philosophical or scientific debate. The current paradigm of the consciousness debate is framed by primacy of either (a) matter or (b) consciousness. These are the only 2 concepts that science and philosophy can perceive to be probable base realities, as these are the only 2 basic concepts which can be experimentally verified. The basic reality may very well be the Brahman or the being - which is neither consciousness nor matter nor anything the human mind can perceive - but you need to clearly explain that when you say 'being', you mean it in a spiritual concept and not 'being' as in philosophy or science. You should then try to grow it as a spiritual argument from there on, but if you insist on making this as a philosophical framework rather than a spiritual one, then it would be very difficult to solve the 'hard problem' within this framework.
@@maker2002 I think we can solve the 'hard problem' with the model i am exploring whether it is taken spiritually or not. Make sure you subscribed to my newsletter or CZcams channel because I am soon going to publish a talk I gave recently at an online conference for the Scientific and Medical Network called 'Consciousness ...and why I was wrong about it', which explores exactly this. timfreke.com
Thank you Tim. Bernardo and I are in contact and I have several of his books. I read his latest papers with eagerness. I feel Tim you are close to David Bohm in your thinking. Have you seen the latest movie on Bohm ‘Infinite Potential’?
Yes. I find Bohm's ideas fascinating
santos bonacci has a great aspect on how we where held together
I enjoyed your argument very much.
Just a thought - what if ‘Being’ is the thing that’s in between? What you call Becoming.
Think of it as an entity that IS the story, the thing that lives between A and B. Perhaps emergence is the 'is' and everything else is what allows it to 'be' (I always have trouble articulating this).
For many years when I listen to Leonard Cohen’s song “You know who I am” I sense that the lyrics point to something along these lines though I can never quite capture it.
There is also something about the Kabbalistic story that seems to point in a similar direction. It’s very interesting.
I'm glad to have discovered your channel.
I am going to think about that Caroline. I see becoming as the relational ... all that is the emergent relationship of the one to itself. I can also see the opposite as well though ... only the relationship allows being to be. I love that. I don't see being as existing separately to becoming in some way... so both are true for me. I see being as the ever present ground of the process of becoming. (If you'd like to talk in person with me about this stuff you may find this of interest timfreke.com/ICU.aspx
@@TimFreke1 Thanks for your comment. I agree that there is something deep about the relational. To me, that seems to be the entire mystery. I mean...how did the relational come to be?? I think that's why I like that Leonard Cohen song, it seems to hint at that. I will check out your site for sure.
@@Bombbashable I may be missing the end of your comment. But I want to agree. The relational literally is everything. I don't see Being as existing separately on it's own somehow. I see it as the primal quality that is the foundation for the relationship of subjective being with objective being ... which is the one in relationship with itself. It wasn't one the one and the came into relationship. That's unintelligible to me. It IS the one in relationship to itself. Hope that makes some sense.
Tim Freke seems to relate to “I am that I am”
@@Bombbashable Yes. Exactly. This is Being when it becomes conscious of itself I would say.
Yay T!M!
😀
Tim I appreciate the chance to hear this but I agree with Bernardo you appear to
just describing materialism with different worlds. Tim you haven't described anything other than adding a word "Being" without defining it. Adding a word like being to an argument doesn't add value or make an argument at a philosophical level.
The good thing about this discussion is I have even greater understanding and respect of Bernardo's ideas.
I think to talk philosophy there needs to be an understanding of philosophical terms and definitions.
Saying all this I did enjoy the conversation and I appreciated you sharing it.
I am expanding the current evolutionary narrative so of course it will start with matter, but this is the change of viewpoint I am describing. I have come to believe that the revolutionary new paradigm we need to unite science and spirituality will not be a re-envisioned version of the old spiritual philosophy that ‘consciousness is primary’, but an expanded evolutionary philosophy that challenges both science and spirituality to think in new ways. I suggest that science has already given us the ideas we need to create a new post-Physicalist understanding of existence in the concepts of ‘evolution’, ‘emergence’, ‘information’ and ‘relationality’.
Beautiful conversation, thank you both! From my observation I think the key misunderstanding was where Bernardo was assuming that there's consciousness beyond metaconsciousess. Even when you have a dream that you don't remember you aren't conscious of it until you are. There's no such thing as being conscious and not knowing about it. You either are or you're not. Everything only ever happens in the moment. On the Tim's side I saw lack of clarity in what he was trying to express, I have been through a similar transition in my view lately and I can see the subtle point he's making, but I understand it's hard to grasp for people. I think it was amazingly put by Daniel Scmachtenberger in conversation with Tim when he said something like that impulse of asking what reality essentially is, is mistake in impulse. Similarly Rupert Spira said somewhere, that you can only say that consciousness is fundamental in reaction to materialism, one without the other wouldn't make sense, so it's reactionary thing as well. For example Carlo Rovelli and the way he talks about Quantum loop theory is very similar to Tim's view. I would really recommend to check him out! Thank you again for doing this! All the best to both!
So you think consciousness stops when you stop thinking? Does experience just magically vanish when you stop thinking?
Brilliant and exciting. Bernardo you pinned Tim by saying he is agnostic monist. And it is not enough to saying Being is existence.
I'm saying the ground of Becoming (which you are witnessing right now) is Being ... the one quality shared by all. That's not enough to explain much, but surely it is a very good foundation Gurveen. Why do we have to assign the ground either an extra objective quality (physicalism) or an extra subjective quality (idealism)? Neutral Monism is also an option.
Thanks for responding, Tim. Sure neutral monism is an option but on the basis of this talk Bernados explanation seems more convincing.
I characterize this exchange as BOTH delightfully irritating AND irritatingly delightful. Wonderful! Quite a dance. Quite a workout.
You made me smile Mark :-) My sentiments exactly!
This hits upon the limits of language ! Language is particularly developed to describe experience
It certain requires us to push language in new ways.
Tim Freke In a debate like this, it would help if you establish definitions before kicking off. Good arguments seems easy to loose among equivocations and lack of clear definitions. “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right name”
@@Mandibil I agree. It is because previous conversations in the series have not been debates like this .. that was a unique meeting with me and Bernardo. It really is a private conversation made public, not an attempt at a public debate. I think people view it much more adversarially than Bernardo and I experienced it from what we shared afterwards.
@@TimFreke1 Alright ... but from my angle it looks public :-) ... just my 2 Satoshi´s
@@Mandibil Yep. I can see that. I need to be clearer about what I am doing with this series of conversations so I don't cause misunderstandings. Also I can work to improve them in ways you suggest. I certainly would do that if/when I chat with Bernardo again, because I know he would be up for that. Thanks.
how could a universe that is created with cosmological constants so exact that even a fractional point dissolves this cosmos be so primitive as Bernardo postulates? this was a wonderful episode. I enjoyed you both and the back and forth. those were good comments. MEMO to Tim, the difference you were bringing up was so nuanced that maybe you should go over it again in a sidebar issue.
My two cents.... The impression is that the disagreement arises due to the fact that both would like to characterize something which can’t be determined by sticking at a third-person description. Only a first-person perspective can make sense of terms like ‘being’, ‘existing’ (what does it mean that something ‘exists’?) or ‘consciousness’. I’m also afraid that the typical misconception has crept in which considers consciousness meaningless without ‘being’ conscious ‘of’ something. One can clearly realize that this isn’t the case by a subjective investigation. For example, one can go inside without trying to think or theorize and realize how our thoughts are coming and going and yet a ‘being’, something or someone indefinable, a witness, a ‘blank page’ that simply ‘is’ and experiences these fleeting thoughts ‘exists’. It is always itself and immutable in the background. It is the most basic and obvious thing we know. Through this first-person point of view, to me it becomes self-evident how the mutable phenomena are one thing, the immutable being experiencing it and that ‘exists’ is another. Once we become aware of this, without words, concepts or theories we can then translate it into words. I would translate it into saying that phenomenal consciousness is ‘being’ having an experience. But, if there is no experience still something is left: 'being' without experiencing any content, conscious of nothing other than itself (I don't think this contradicts BK's idealism but one would have to extend this to a universal consciousness...I stop here). Does that make sense?
Fractals (like the Mandelbrot set), can be both beautiful AND terrifying! It would be sad for UCX to reach that conclusion. Would it then desire destruction?
I've been following Tim for a while and it seems he has recently gone through a crucifixion of old ideas and is anxious to reformulate new ones. I can understand the death of a concept and the difficulty to give it the proper burial time. I enjoyed this video but thought Bernardo did not get enough space and could have gone farther in this interview. It would be best to agree on definition of terms before moving into concepts. I wouldn't mind a separate video of Tim articulating his new ideas without a guest.
I hear you ... and I think you are entirely right. I am working on a book about these new ideas (and many others actually). I've discussed them with my online community but not done a public video yet. I should do that.
Dear Tim.. Firstly let me say, I am a fan of yours and have been for years. Secondly, I am gonna paist here what i typed to a friend recently about this conversation you had with Bernardo::: "Tim Freke (who is both extremely intelligent and also, seemingly, a genuinely lovely human being) makes a big inference at 31:40 into this clip. This is PRECISELY the (ultimate/final) line in the sand which separates the yay sayers from even the closest related nay sayers to the consciousness only model...Namely: the reluctance to yield to the possibility that PURE subjectivity is the (sole) ontological primitive. They do not make the connection that all objectivity is in time (and space), is finite, and that subjectivity is not in time and it is not locatable. It is, if one inquires into it fully/rigorously, in fact, infinite and eternal.. This is the whole key to crossing the border to grocking this new (consciousness only) model.
I don't think the idea that I am reluctant to 'yield to the possibility that PURE subjectivity is the (sole) ontological primitive' makes much sense Mark given that I assert this one way or another in 34 books! I think you'll need to look a lot deeper than that to explain why I have changed my mind so radically. Please do forward my comment to your friend. If you are following my work you'll see more on this gradually emerge over the coming year leading up to a book or video series.
@@TimFreke1 - Dare i say, i think that i do understand what you were trying to convey in the conversation, in the bit about "being". In fact, i feel the impulse behind what you seemed (to me) to be aiming at was actually right on.. It seems to me that you are saying that consciousness/awareness doesn't go "back" far enough to be the ontological primitive. It seems to me you are saying that it is a function of beingness and not beingness itself. Apologies if i am wrong about this interpretation. If i'm right though (about this being what you're getting at) then i would say that awareness/consciousness of objects (consciousness as it operates in time) is to do with functionality. However, it is only the formal/finite side of the consciousness "coin". Pure consciousness, consciousness/awareness minus objects IS pure beingness. And these apparent two (consciousness of objects and consciousness sans objects) are not two. In other words, pure consciousness IS beingness. Nothing needs to be added. Again, apologies if i have misinterpreted you on this. All the best!
@@rauxmedia OK. I understand a little more Mark. Thanks for the clarification. If you understand me as now denying the existence of 'pure Consciousness' you are right. (Actually I am not sure we we can talk about 'pure Being' either .. because Being appress as the ground of Becoming, not independently of it). I don't see the ground of Being as conscious in any meaningful sense of the word. Actually I never have. In my previous work I described the ground (rather torturously) as Unconscious Consciousness ... or Unconscious Awareness ... because I see the evolutionary movement as form this unconscious oneness through conscious individuality to conscious oneness. I kept with the term 'consciousness' because I found the analogy that life is like a dream so powerful and seeing the ground as consciousness enabled me use this analogy. Now I find the analogy too limiting to express what I am exploring so I've moved on how I am languaging and conceiving of things.
@@TimFreke1 - The term "consciousness" has baggage, there's no doubt. I can see why you wanted to dispense with it. As for the "life being like a dream" analogy, I think that analogy's descriptive power has its limits as well. Where it seems we part is (mega-paradox alert) I feel there is only, ultimately, pure consciousness. I'm not doing an A dvaita shuffle here either. I'm monstrously in love with the worldly, with experience. In fact I'm a (nondual) Humanist, and a nonviolent activist. I'm profane in my veins! I could go on explaining but instead I'll spare you and leave you with a quote from an Argentinian writer/teacher name Silo. All the BEst to you. Keep rockin it the way you see it brother!
I wonder about one thing here. Consciousness can be aware of different experiences but is not necessarily awake to itself. That would be a human without internal inside into his inner workings, but functioning as a reactive being in this world. They often don't know why they did what they did. Then there is a level of consciousness of being aware of the internal experiences. These people see and hear, they know what is going on and act but are not forced to re-act. Then we have the meta consciousness where one sees consciousness being conscious. Many people identify with the witness of experience as I am. But what is the meta consciousness then who witness the witness? It feels for me that this process is like looking into an endless self mirroring between two mirrors down to wonderland.
Fantastic dialogue I u!nderstand each of your positions more clearly now. I love the transjective/relational understanding you have Tim, I share those views.
One issue I have with the position that reality is 'mental' is that it shares too many connotations with a naive sort of spiritualism. I do not think that Bernardo means it in this way, because he is quite clear about trans-subjective reality (I.e., it’s not up to our mere thinking whims). The word ‘being,’ as you prefer Tim, has the advantage of being more neutral. I believe I heard you saythat being at its ontological root is simultaneously subjective and objective, I could be mistaken. To me the word *subjective implies experience* of some sort, so if we postulate subjectivity all the way down to an ontological primitive, then my understanding of subjectivity would also bring experience. Perhaps you are using a different definition of subjective or I just misunderstood you. Maybe you were saying subjectivity evolves out of being later. I know we are talking soon, so I am sure there will be time for this!
My current view, stemming from Roger Strachan, is that the universe is in a process of striving towards intentional and intelligent functionality, which implies it might not always get it (e.g., evolution). This position does require some very basic form of primitive consciousness (in the phenomenal sense) or intentionality, which is creative and can strive for complexification in an open ended manner. At any rate, these are my current views, rest assured that I do not know! I am happy to be asking the tough questions and honored to have witnessed this debate. Two sharp philosophers!
Tim, love your work, however two respectful critques. 1. Self control and practiced listening are imperative to sound debate. 2 . This conversation is for all of us, not primarily for you hence its presence on CZcams. Genuine passion is hard for anyone to contain, again love your work!
Yep. These genuinely are private conversations made public Andrew. In this one I know Bernardo's position so well, because it is close to what use to be my own, that I respond far too quickly. We should have just kept it private.
@@TimFreke1 That would have been a loss to us all. Thank you.
@@andrewwhite6 😀 I just read your comment literally as I was moving the settings on this video to 'private'. So I'll give it some more thought.
@@TimFreke1 That's the spirit, thank you! We need you guys. Those of us lost in wonder like you, genuinely appreciate the privilege, although that may not always come across. Please be tolerant in the knowledge that we are just as passionate as you. Best wishes!
Hey Tim, I just watched the conversation and I think it was great (just a disclaimer that I'm an non-dualist, idealist or whatever).
Just a quick question if you don't mind - how do you define time?
It seems to me that your metaphysics imply the existence of time on an ontic and not epistemic level. For "it" to be "becoming" means that time, maybe even space, have to be either existing or an intrinsic feature of this "being", otherwise how could "it" be "becoming" and where to? If time and space weren't at first feature and they just became, how did they come about? When is it about time for time to become existing, you know what I mean? I have trouble wrapping my head around this. Would you mind clarifying?
This is a big question for this little message box Jozef. The idea of time is central to my thinking because what I experience is a continual flow of change in which the present builds on the past but realises new possibilities. So it looks to me that this is a good description of existence. The realisation of ever more emergent possibilities. And the past doesn't disappear, it exists as implicit information in the present, which makes existence ever richer.
So 'time' is a word to describe that accumulation of information .. the flow of realisation. Being is the ground of this process because it seems to me, looking now at my experience, that this is the primal quality everything shares. This primal quality of 'being' is 'informed' by information - eg 'qualified' to give rise to the 'qualities' of existence.
I see everything as the relationship of the one with itself. Space, time, energy, everything ... are relational qualities. (A view shared by most physicists I believe.) Information is a word to describe what defines all those relationships. The most fundamental of which is duality - relationship itself. And this is why existence is most certainly not non-dual , but rather 'unidual'. 2 and 1 at the same time. Yin and Yang as the Tao in relationship with itself.
Hope that helps you understand what I am exploring a bit. :-) Check out my latest video 'The Essence of Unividualism' for more
@@TimFreke1 Thanks Tim, that helps :) I'll check it out.
Very good discission, although too long on "being" vs "consciousness". Wish they could have discussed, Is Time and Evolution fundamental of consciousness? Tim feels strongly about these.
"Infinite consciousness". doesn't have "experiences". Finite consciousness does in infinite consciousness.
Not unlike the "you in your dreams" and you dreaming. The you dreaming can't directly experience the dream, so it it creates a separate self in the dream. That you in the dream then has experiences. That you in the dream comes and goes, but the you dreaming never comes or goes. The you in the dream experiences subject/object. The you dreaming does not, since it is all and all is it. This also why finite consciousness experiences space, time, matter, energy, entropy, a separate self, evolution, personal thinking, personal emotions, sensations, perceptions, etc. Infinite consciousness does not, again since all is it and it is all. So, what are you? You are infinite consciousness having an experience of finite consciousness of you. You're right now, the you in your you dreaming. Try to enjoy it. It doesn't last long. We do "wake up". Its unadvoidable.
Your comment is the most parsemoniest comment of all the comments. We all a figment of God's imagination. Life is but a dream.
Ontologically, any state of being, absent the awareness of being, can only be an abstraction within awareness. Awareness is the one state that can't be such an abstraction, because there can't be any abstraction without there first being awareness. So the primacy of awareness remains the most parsimonious state, with no need to abstract some state prior to it.
And that is the argument I now see as in error beautifully expressed.
@Snow Leopard
*"Ontologically, any state of being, absent the awareness of being, can only be an abstraction within awareness."*
This was nothing but question begging.
@@Dhorpatan ... Well the question remains, how is it more parsimonious to postulate an abstracted unaware state prior to awareness, as necessary to explain awareness -- basically another variation of materialism's 'hard problem' -- as opposed to just beginning with awareness as the uncaused, irreducible ontological primitive?
@Snow Leopard
Because awareness is just an action/property. Just like digestion requires that which digests. Walking requires that which walks. Awareness requires something that is aware. You have been listening to way too much hogwash garbage from Bernardo Kastrup and New age asinine woo from Rupert Spira.
@@Dhorpatan ... Sorry, but resorting to such churlish insults, in lieu of actually presenting a cogent case, won't cut it.
Instinct is dualistic.
1:11:33-1:14:22
Tim has hijacked Bernardo at every instance where Bernardo is formulating ideas comprised of many strands and Tim quite impulsively cut him off before he even gets to the second strand. I had to turn it off. Tim can’t listen long enough to get Bernardo and it’s evident actually understanding is not important to Tim
Great conversation Tim! I don't see, though how you can meaningfully separate the word Being from the word consciousness. Why not define Being as a primordial aspect of consciousness?
Being is the simplest quality. Consciousness has 2 qualities ... existing and being conscious of that. Although my ideas have changed radically fairly recently, I have argued for more than 20 years that consciousness is relational. Being a conscious subject requires an object.
@@TimFreke1 I see. In your view, consciousness emerges from Being. In my view, and Bernardo's I believe, Being is pure consciousness and evolves a subject object relationship. Ultimately, it seems that we see it the same way but differ semantically in whether to call pure Being "consciousness."
@@amirguri1335 If we are just having a chat - then yes it is 'semantics' and of little real importance. But if we are attempting to understand the nature of existence, then it matters. At least it did to me ... so that I changed how I language my understanding after 34 books using the language you and Bernardo adopt. Why? Because if the ground is not conscious it is philosophical sleight of hand to call it 'Consciousness' and leads to confusion from this point on. It is illegitimately forming the foundation of an Idealist metaphysics. I have come to believe we can do better than that. There is a better option.
Am I missing something? Tim says BEING is fundamental, and being has become conscious? So what is BEING independent of consciousness? As I listen to Tim I am not clear what he is saying that is distinct from what Bernardo is saying. What have I missed? If consciousness is emergent then attention becomes consciousness? As I was listening I was able to predict Bernardo's answer. There is a clear misunderstanding of what it means to be conscious, consciousness includes unconsciousness in the phenomenal consciousness sense. I found the conversation frustrating, I think that allowing some time to really understand what Bernardo is saying would have been good preparation. I do want to understand what Tim is saying? being is just being, then what is being? being is that which exists. BEING becomes some kind of unknown something outside of consciousness, I am confused. @Tim to me you seem defensive? Right at the beginning of the conversation, Bernardo was clear about his definition of consciousness and you seem to have missed it. Thank you for a great video I enjoyed it. One last observation, If you watch it back you will see that it is obvious that you are not listening, you seem to be to keen to interrupt.
I think what Tim here proposes is a kind of 'neutral monism' the view that the mental and the physical emerge from something third which is in itself neither mental nor physical what he calls 'being'. Did I understand him/you correct?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism
That's exactly right. The One (Being) is in relationship to itself as subjective and objective being.
@String Vest Yes. I don't mean matter is the ground at all, although it is an early, foundational form of emergence. I suggest the first levels of emergence are pre-material and the latest levels are transmaterial psyche. The material levels - physics/biology - arise between these two. I suggest the One is in relationship with itself. And every relationship is subjective and objective. Whereas Bernardo sees the ground as having intrinsic subjectivity (feeling) without the relationship. (At least I hope that is an accurate representation of his ideas.)
@String Vest It does have one quality ... of Being. Look around you and focus on the one quality everything has ... including you. (I don't think 'enlightenment' is a helpful idea any more and I certainly don't see myself as anything special in that way.)
@@highvalence7649 I think it is very similar. So the issue is ... do we have the same concept by different names or different concepts. And if the same concept what is the clearest name. I suspect we actually have different concepts, but if they are the same I can have come to think (after decades of using the term) that Consciousness is too misleading a term to use for the ground that isn't actually conscious and leads to all sorts of other concepts getting smuggled in through the confusion this generates.
@@highvalence7649 Yes. And I think this is not a good name for the ground or more likely simply the wrong concept for the ground. Sorry if I haven't been able to address your points. I'll need to stop now because I have a book to write. Enjoy your exploration of this great mystery we call being alive!
Tim, try listening!!
I know it’s hard when someone put forward ideas that don’t fit with your own but it is the essence of a Animated debate which I’m glad to say Bernardo and myself we’re both completely up for and enjoyed. If you know Bernardo‘s work, you will know that he is an incredibly robust debater who challenges others and enjoys being challenged himself. I know his ideas incredibly well not just from reading his work but also because they were incredibly similar to ideas. I’ve had myself and written about for most of my life. What he was unaware of was why I changed my mind and what made me do that.
@@TimFreke1 Try some Jung.
@@paulc2019 have you listened to my conversation with my old friend Sonu Shamdasani ? The leading expert on Jung in the world today.
This is the last of Tim’s interviews that’s I’ll watch. Utterly obnoxious.
yes Tim you say you are having a discussion and not an interview But constant interruption is not a discussion It takes two You talk constantly and Bernardo gets a few moments before being interrupted again
I dunno, to tell me that the ground of being is being seems like it's telling me nothing. What I do know is that my experience of being (and, presumably that of other creatures which exist and which appear to be conscious to me) is completely dependent on consciousness of that experience.
I agree with that my friend. It is obvious that the most basic quality is being and that we are only conscious of being when we are conscious. What I am now questioning is whether we can make the jump from that which says ... so the ground of existence is consciousness. I don't think we can any more.
@@TimFreke1 Would it fair to say you are a 'god' man who does not believe or accept any dogma/scripture as purely divine?
@@mozy106 Yes. That is correct.
Great talk but i suspect neither of you are thinking big enough about universal conciousness.
What is it?
What does it comprise of?
How did it attain all its knowledge and power?
These are the questions worth considering i think.
If there was nothing before it,then how did it learn anything?
Is Universal Consciousness self aware? Does the fact that we are considering it, therefore make UCX self aware?
Oh wow! - This discussion really highlights how language and definitions are crucial to understanding. And that understanding is required before any entropy, progression or evolution can form new desires. "BEING" Philosophically has been defined. Where is the fringe then? Are we it? Is humanity at the frontline? www.reddit.com/r/neuronaut
Tim doesn't listen particularly well to Bernardo. He interrupts too much. They end up talking past each.
Tim - I'm loving this series, really great stuff I really appreciate these conversations, thank you..... but along with a number of commentators below I found that there was something irritating and frustrating about how you engaged with Bernardo. You just didn't listen, or understand what he was trying to say, in your enthusiasm to pronounce your own ideas. Bernardo's insights and ideas are really subtle and robust, and very well defended over time, you simply didn't do him justice. I'd love to hear a round two, where you take on board and steel man his arguments, because you really did not appear to understand the points you were refuting. He was also pointing out that your ontological primitive of 'being' is empty and agnostic, not explanatory, which you repeatedly denied without seeming to understand what he meant - or, that's how it came across. I only feel free to be critical in this instance because your standard of conversation is usually so much higher.
Yep. I hear you. The idea of 'private conversations made public' maybe didn't work here, because I am very familiar with Bernardo's position and he is not with mine, so that skewed things in this episode for the outside listener. Also as I said at the beginning of the film I felt that as Bernardo has a great reputation for robust discussion I could relax and we could play together as we might over coffee, which worked well for us but not for some listeners which I completely understand.
@@TimFreke1 The conversation 'worked' for me as a real discussion not an artificial one. Although you said you were familiar with Bernado's work beforehand, I felt, along with Matthew, that at times you had not understood some of the basic but subtle points that he was making, and certainly that is consistent with his reactions and repititions and rephrasing of some points, such as the distinction between the consciousness that in his view is being and meta consciousness. However you probably had a better understanding of this by the end of the conversation.
@@mailjeffwebb Yes i got a better understanding from the conversation for sure. But also Jeffrey I was in turn trying to invite Bernardo to see his ideas in a new light, because they are essentially very similar to ideas I have written many books on and now see as incorrect, with my previous concepts and arguments flawed. I'm not sure I am managed to convey this to Bernardo, but I look forward to trying again at some point because he is very smart and likeable guy.
@@TimFreke1 Well good luck with that Tim. I for one would be keen on viewing another conversation between you and Bernado. Perhaps it would be possible to find a way past what seemed to me the fundamental sticking point of the conversation: your willingness to start from being and move on from it with ideas such as it being in relationship with itself, and a continual emergence and evolution, and Bernado's insistence that being, which he stated as meaning something like that which is, acts only as a place holder (which for example could be replaced by physicalism) unless something from the outset is said about what being is. which for him is phenomenal consciousness, which I think he defined as consciousness that is not aware of being conscious.
Your conversation with John Vervaeke, was quite a contrast in that he seemed more willing to move with what you are proposing, even if he perhaps didn't agree with all of your points.
@@TimFreke1 he tried to explain the first thing of idealism for more than an hour and you couldn't understand it. Yes, you are very familiar.
Dear Tim,
I think this may summarise Bernardo's suggestion of why you are wrong.
By postulating the existence of 'Being' as the ground of reality, you are by definition postulating consciousness as the ground of being. For how can we meaningfully claim the existence of anything that exists outside of consciousness. Consciousness is the only known carrier of reality, as Bernardo states, therefore to suggest something 'exists' is none other than affirming the presence of knowing itself, consciousness. Therefore your ground, 'Being', unless it doesn't exist, implies that either it is consciousness or it appears within consciousness. Again, if you say it exists, you automatically assume consciousness.
By saying that the ground of existence is 'Being' you may as well say the ground of Being is Being. Doesn't really get you anywhere and it doesn't violate parsimony nor empiricism to suggest that this being is the universal, infinite, indivisible reality that cannot be anything other than Consciousness itself. I think the core of the problem lies in your misunderstanding of Consciousness itself as its own ontological category. It is not merely the emergent, relatively new, subject/object-bound category that I think you often consciously or subconsciously assume it is.
Maybe that made no sense but I thought I'd give it a go.
Thanks for the great conversation.
cH Ch...I think I agree with what you're articulating here. Is this perhaps something about duality and non-duality, whereby Barnardo is asserting a non-dual position and Tim may be getting caught in the dualistic trap without realising it and then proceeds to further get caught in the semantics of this position?
Zeb Kaylique yeah that sounds about right Zeb
@@zeb358 I am saying the one is in relationship with itself - just look at what is happening for you right now.
@@charliechamberlayne7042 see my reply to Zeb
I do hear you, because if you know my books you'll find all these arguments. I refer you to what I said to Bernardo that has led me to change my mind. The argument that consciousness is required for anything to exist is circular and invalid. I didn't see that for years, but now I cant not see it because it is so obvious. Thanks for your thoughts.
How could something be without consciousness? Saying that the ground of the world is Being is just like saying that it is Consciousness. I can't see any difference between the two
Being is the simple quality of existing ... no more. Consciousness from the Latin root means 'with knowing'. It is not just being ... but the knowing of being. I suggest Being is the foundational quality which has taken on all other qualities. With the evolution of life we see the emergence of 'consciousness' ... 'being conscious of being'.
Tim, did you check out actualized.org? He has some interesting perspectives that I'm sure you'd sink your teeth into.
1:01:30 - Tim, if all you can say of 'Being' is that it has the property of existence, you are merely stating an obvious tautology. The problem of declaring 'Being' as your ontological foundation, is that practically all ontological models share the same assumption (Materialists, Idealists, Panpsychists, etc.), and it tells us nothing about the nature of 'Being'.
I am saying something obvious when I say the ground is Being .. and that is why I think it is the right place to start. But I am saying more than this. I am suggestion that the nature of existence is 'The One in relationship with itself'. That is the process of Becoming. Being is in the process of becoming. That relationship is everything ... time, space, energy ... and importantly it the interaction of subjectivity and objectivity of different individual information systems at every level of emergence. Materialism makes the objective the ground. Idealism makes the Subjective the ground. I am suggesting non-dual Being. Being is the foundational quality with the potential to evolving into all the qualities of the universe. Existence is the realisation of potentiality in ever more emergent ways. This may or may not be true, but I think this says quite a bit about the nature of existence.
@@TimFreke1 All the attributes you used above to describe 'Being' are additional claims that go beyond the ground of 'Being' as simply 'Is'. They are not parsimonious, but extra layers you add to your ontological 'Being'.
1:06:20 - True. Saying “Being is” is more parsimonious than “Being is Consciousness” (in some way at least), but the former is not what you are claiming. In one instance you agree with Bernardo that all you can say about 'Being' is that it exists, and in another you are hypothesizing additional attributes of 'Being' (e.g., the nature of existence is 'the One in relationship with itself'). If all you are saying about 'Being' is that it exists, then yes, you're proposing something more parsimonious than Bernardo's ontology. Point is, you are not stoping there, you go on to propose additional properties of 'Being'.
1:28:10 - Since you seem to hold that 'Being', in its simplest and purest form, does not have phenomenological consciousness, and that consciousness emerged over time from 'Being', I think you are still left with some version of the hard problem of consciousness. As you need to explain how consciousness emerged/evolved from a non-conscious 'Being'. And that very explanation will render your ontology less parsimonious.
@@etai5276 Every step forward from the ground will be an addition by definition. So we find the ground by retracing all these steps to the simplest quality, which I am suggesting is Being not Consciousness, because the ground isn't conscious. It has no qualities other than existing. It is neither subjective or objective ... but will emerge as both subjective Being and objective Being in relationship with each other ... eg transjective Being. I agree I need to then account for the emergence of consciousness - and I think I can do that by understanding that the so-called Hard Problem is actually 3 related problems ... but forgive me because that is too much to go through in detail here. In essence my answer is that Subjectivity is foundational in the relationship of the One to Itself and consciousness is a very emergent form of subjectivity.
@@TimFreke1 I understand that these issues are hard to summaries in a few lines. Nonetheless, notice that Bernardo's ground is fundamentally conscious, and does not require a further explanation to account for consciousness. Your ground, 'Being', lacks consciousness and requires additional propositions to account for its emergence. This is why Bernardo's ontology is more parsimonious. Not more parsimonious than “Being is”, but more parsimonious than “Being is + Explanation for the emergence of consciousness”.
@@etai5276 I may be doing something wrong on youtube my freind, but I can't see all of your comment. This has happened before with some other comments, but I am not sure of the solution. Apologies.
Tim, this discussion would have been much more fruitful had you let the interviewee develop his thoughts.
I'm gonna sound arrogant, but if you want to start getting into the deep end of the pool, interview Greg Goode and Soh Wei Yu.
I'm gonna sound ignorant but i'd not heard of greg. i've just been listening to him. he is very articulate and i don't agree with his metaphysics 😀 thanks for the recommendation (ps you don't sound arrogant andre)
Greg Goode, like Rupert Spira, was a student of Francis Lucille. He has a foot on Advaita and another on Buddhism. He's not attached to any specific paradigm, which is not something very common. Also has some background in western philosophy.
Sometimes I feel people are trying to reinvent the wheel. The mysteries of existence have been solved already. There have been already incredible philosophers and yogis who've crossed the threshold before. We just have to follow on their footsteps and make their realization our own. To ignore the ones who've embarked on this journey before may be fun (the thrill of discovering something "new"), but it's not the most pragmatic, if peace and truth is what we seek.
The word "apple" can't describe the experience of apple, and we're on a very "superficial" level of experience. The term "apple" is actually without ultimate referent. In this way, concepts can't ever encapsulate the nature of reality. There is never an *actual* correspondence between words and reality, so no "affirmative truth" can be ultimately valid. All that words can do is help us in deconstructing our minds, our limiting conceptual structures, so a direct perception of the true nature of phenomena and ourselves may arise. It's not about building models, it's about collapsing them. As I see it.
Neither consciousness nor consciousness but only conscience is what separates man from everything else, when the conscience is pure pure is the same soul, the conscience is the same breath that the Creator of the world exhales in the mouth of mankind so that you can feel and understand the difference in thestatement 'in the image of God'_The conscience is supposed to be the compass of humanity and this compass is the social and social law given at Mount Sinai,It is very difficult and cruel to run a society without a conscience, (a conscience including understanding, acceptance, mercy, help, love, brotherhood, not to murder, not to covet), these and many more are the harsh rules so that humanity can have a clear conscience to be busy doing good for itself and creation(In Hebrew, this is called making time for books:)_Unfortunately, what the world is experiencing in this millennium is a lack of conscience, arrogance and disregard for social laws.Unscrupulous crimes and egoism bordering on narcissism, moving away from the same exhalation of the Creator in creation, man begins to distance himself from creation and this is called unscrupulous humanity,And when humanity loses its conscience, the good, begins to disappear from the world, chaos, covetousness and anarchy take their place,It has been a while since humanity has reached the crown but we have arrived lame, because in order to reach the crown intact, humanity must reach with a clean and pure conscience, the crown is built of wisdom, intellect, and knowledge, humanity has reached the crown thanks to wisdom and knowledge but great lack of intellect,_If humanity does not keep in touch with the exhalation of the Creator it will return to being an animal, as it was before the exhalation of conscience_But hope is not lost from the world, keep a clear conscience and purity and holiness will be part of creation again:)
How is philosophy relevant to a scientific question? There are many philosophical questions around the phenomenon of life...but what is life is NOT a philosophical question. You can do philosophy AFTER we get the answer from Science (i.e what to do with our life).
Oh my god,Tim you love your own voice!
Why do you bring guests?🙄😳
Bernardo and I set out to debate. In other areas of life this is normal. We enjoyed it.
...okay, so what is more "parsimonious"...? ...to offer up the word "Consciousness" as the "descriptor" for ALL THAT IS...or dolly the camera one more redundant (human linguistic) step and insist that no, no, BEING is whats primordial... and then somehow down a chain of causation (which does not in actuality exist) becomes conscious...? Well...whatever you choose to "call it" ...it had better not ONLY be simple...but as Mr. Mckenna would say, it had better be "that which cannot be made SIMPLER".... "Sat" (aka Being) IS "Chit" (aka consciousness)...
That was really hard to listen to...
It is difficult to listen to person who doesn't give another a chance to finish a sentence.
Everyone is really Everyone Else God the Real Self experiences itself through us. God is playing the game of hide and seek.
"I am that; you are that; all this is that; and, that's all there is."
Indian guru
"I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space...."
William Shakespeare (Hamlet Act 2 Scene 2)
Someone I won't say who told me: Consciousness is King.
And lest we forget B. Bunny’s - “That’s all folks!”
Don't bother. Tim's ADHD is a bit overwhelming. He doesn't let Kastrup finish a thought.