Metaphysics and The Matter With Things: Iain McGilchrist, Andrew M. Davis and Matthew Segall
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 01. 2024
- This promo conversation between Iain McGilchrist, Matt Segall, and myself anticipates our upcoming 2024 conference titled "Metaphysics and the Matter With Things: Thinking with Iain McGilchrist. This conference takes place March 29-31 and is co-sponsored by the Center for Process Studies and the California Institute for Integral Studies.
Virtual Attendance Registration Still Available: ctr4process.org/conference/me...
Probably won’t be there for the conference but wish I could be. Thanks guys. I look forward to any videos that surface afterward. 👍
Thanks for doing this! Will the conference be filmed and later put on CZcams?
Sorry I missed the early part of this convo… how in-person will the conference be?
The conference is now sold out for in-person attendance, but virtual attendance is still live. Join us! Here's the link: ctr4process.org/mcgilchrist-registration/
@@AndrewMDavis-yo3mm Thank you Dr. Davis. I was in fact asking about whether the speakers themselves will be present in person or if their talks will be prerecorded, done live via Zoom, etc. I am a philosophy grad student at the University of Windsor in Canada and would very much like to attend. Will have to see about affording the ticket. I'm focused on the role of optimism in good thinking, inspired by Peirce's comments on the matter and deeply interested in Whitehead. Anyway, whatever additional info you could give about the proceedings of the conference would be great. Thanks.
Your research sound excellent. Yes, all speakers will be attending live except Michael Levin who will join virtually. Here is the link for virtual registration: ctr4process.org/conference/metaphysics-and-the-matter-with-things-thinking-with-iain-mcgilchrist/@@mynameisAMRA
@@AndrewMDavis-yo3mm Well, thank you. And thanks for the info. Excellent news.
This sounds like a remarkable event. Will McGilchrist be engaging /responding to each presenter?
I find myself hanging on every word when Iain McGilchrist speaks.
Side note: And "while" I was hanging on every word...I was also noticing Mathew's mannerisms as he was listening...and it got me wondering if he is an INFJ (myers briggs typology indicator)...because that's what I believe I am and Mathew's mannerisms are soooooo much like my own (I've had to re-watch a number of zoom calls in which I have participated....otherwise I wouldn't have a clue about my own mannerisms) I don't really expect an answer, but boy oh boy would it be a treat if I got one.
Pretty sure I’m a thinking type but it may be pretty close. I’ve taken that typology test a few times but that was years ago now. First time I was INTJ, second time several years later I was INTP.
@@Footnotes2Plato If INTJ was correct, that would mean your dominant function is introverted intuition.... INFJs are the only other type out of 16 with dominant introverted intuition (Ni), and they also share inferior extroverted sensing (Se) I got INFP initially and assumed it was right for years until I looked into the cognitive functions. Tests are a good starting point, but results can be skewed by a number of things...such as, in my case, answering the questions more from a place of what others would say about me (thinking that would be more objective and thus more accurate) but it turns out that's not the best way to arrive at accurate results. I've actually wondered (and still wonder occasionally) if I could actually be an INTJ...The truth is I'm not 100% certain. Maybe we're both INTJs! I think it's a lot easier to identify our dominant function and our inferior function than it is to identify our secondary and tertiary functions....just because they tend to be obvious strengths/weaknesses. So because those are exactly the same for both types, I may have to settle on "one of the two" or find an expert to settle it for me.
@@macoeur1122 lmao myers briggs and split brain theory are both pseudoscience at best
I found "The Master and His Emissary" wonderful. "The Matter with Things" disturbingly devolves into a clutching at metaphysical reeds. I find it disturbing and sad that anyone with a scientific attitude and appreciations of nature would want and will look for supernatural significances. The quest makes a distinction which allows speculations of the divine by debasing appreciations of nature.
Ha! Interesting comments. Well, here is your chance to see if you've interpreted McGilchrist's recent work correctly. I hope you will attend the conference. As for my two cents: you have certainly not. I'm sorry, but the notion that "a scientific attitude" must reject metaphysics and divinity is absurd (and any cursory overview of "science" and the perspectives of scientists will tell you that). So is the notion that divinity must necessarily be "supernatural" which Iain (and many modern philosophers and theologians) reject. Have you really read the second volume of the Matter With Things which includes the insights of any number of 20th century scientists on these issues? Whatever the case, I hope you will attend the event!
Yes, I read both volumes and found some very worthwhile material. I remember especially enjoying the chapter on logical paradox (in the first volume). The metaphysical speculations and beliefs of many admirable scientists merely show that they are happy to compartmentalize their thinking. Like Stephen Gould, they can apparently avoid integrating disparate notions without feeling dishonest! I'm resigned to the fact that most members of my species will prefer magical thinking even after they've learned how to be reasonable.
If you are interested in my specific criticisms of "The Matter with Things", I'll take the time to jot some down for you. I reviewed the definition of "supernatural" and found my use to be appropriate. If the notion of disembodied mind(s) is a theory (can be explained by science), please send me a reference or two. Thanks for your interest in my comments. @@AndrewMDavis-yo3mm
@@AndrewMDavis-yo3mm "work" is extremely generous, BS is more like it when referring to what McGilchrist "does"
@@connectingupthedots I am seriously curious about the divided reception of Iain's work. So what is the BS--really? I honestly want to know. Also, I hope you will attend our conference to see if this characterization actually stands up. Maybe even ask him yourself? Cheers.
@@AndrewMDavis-yo3mm I greatly appreciate Andrew's open invitation to dialog, in the original sense of the word "dialogos." Steel-man that stuff.
The notion that science doesn't involve imagination or the imaginal completely misses the entire point of Dr. McGilchrist's work that also supports quantum mechanics' quite basic theorem that consciousness is primeval to material. Nothing supernatural about it. If anything, perhaps "hyper-natural" would point more accurately to Mr. Jones' gross misunderstanding of this fundamental Truth.