The Mystic Heart - Part 2 - A Likely Story

[smallpotatoes989]

if the strings are so small how the hell can you know that they are realy there?

[JNathanK2011]

@presentlightoftruth May the holy spirit destroy "you" as well or your sense of "you" anyway.

[grainsandvinegar]

Confused lol

[IChIDH]

@presentlightoftruth spoken like a TRUE Christain.

[IChIDH]

Consciousness is the unifying force.

[smallpotatoes989]

@IChIDH that is probability even the double slit experiment shows that our intentions forms our reality and influences it but you can not know for sure that consciousness is the uniflying force becouse there is still something there before the efect of intentios the sea of infinate possibilites.

[IChIDH]

@presentlightoftruth lol the devil is using you...ever consider that?

[Nhordmyr]

Strange that mostly women are interested in spiritual things. At least in the role of the follower. Very interesting.

[espionaj008]

That bald guys looks like my old psychology teacher

[elbanydaer]

The mind may not even be anywhere near the brain. The brain deals with the mechanics of the body, that's all.

[samurilip]

hah easy for me to get this an belive in the whole conciousness get up cause of my experiences...ufo sightings.goverment designed ufos that have the worst cloaking device ive ever seen...an one obe :}

[pHybian]

@samurilip how is that in any way a reason for not experiencing consciousness?

[samurilip]

@pHybian its going to okay. 

[LooksAeterna]

Physicalist monism does not rest on the assumption that physical objects are fundamentally "matter" in the naive sense. Hence Wilber's use of the observation that "there is no matter down there" is null and void as proof that materialism is wrong.

I agree materialism (in the sense of physicalist monism combined with the metaphysical assumption that fundamentally physical reality is absolutely devoid of all qualia) is idiotic, but for other reasons like: without mentality there is no complexity.

[LooksAeterna]

5:35 - 6:00 is a keen observation, but remember: it is an observation science itself has made, and in fact this is precisely the reason why some physicists don't consider M-Theory a proper scientific theory. It seems to leave the Popperian procedure, at least for now.

[jhgosnell]

@LooksAeterna science is based on observation and experience as is "religion." there should be no real differences here other than modern science has all kinds of instruments to extend our experiencing capacities.

[LooksAeterna]

@jhgosnell If Wilber's argumentation is flawed it doesn't help to open an entirely new subject matter to cover it up. Please leave me alone until you have a point.

[jhgosnell]

@LooksAeterna what does this mean exactly?

[LooksAeterna]

@jhgosnell Are you telling me you can't read this two extremely simple sentences ? Your channel says you're 40, please consult your doctor, no offense.

[jhgosnell]

@LooksAeterna gee, you're polite! where did you learn your manners? i hope you know what the hell your argument means...this is part of it: "I agree materialism (in the sense of physicalist monism combined with the metaphysical assumption that fundamentally physical reality is absolutely devoid of all qualia) is idiotic, but for other reasons like: without mentality there is no complexity." Even Wilber doesn't sound this heady...why don't you translate for the morons like me...?

[LooksAeterna]

@jhgosnell "gee, you're polite! where did you learn your manners?"

Your question showed up directly beneath and temporally after this reply from me. "If Wilber's argumentation is flawed it doesn't help to open an entirely new subject matter to cover it up. Please leave me alone until you have a point."

If you wanted to reply to an earlier comment by me you have to quote it. YT users must know that. If you behave immature, a reflection of that in my answer gives incentive for you to develop.

[jhgosnell]

@LooksAeterna His argument was more simple than you made it: materialists will say that spiritual goings on are simply firings in the brain...but, they will not say that an apple in their visual field is JUST firings in the brain. This clearly marks them as materialists. They will reduce spiritual experience entirely down to brain phenomena, but not matter...that's still REAL.

[LooksAeterna]

@jhgosnell "His argument was more simple than you made it"

Again, you talk about something different than I. That's why I said earlier: "If Wilber's argumentation is flawed it doesn't help to open an entirely new subject matter to cover it up. Please leave me alone until you have a point."

Somewhere in this talk (and I am unwilling to watch his inane vanity again just to prove to you where) he said something to the effect that because there is no matter down there materialism would be wrong.

[LooksAeterna]

(contd.) and hence it is fitting that I say:

"Physicalist monism does not rest on the assumption that physical objects are fundamentally "matter" in the naive sense. Hence Wilber's use of the observation that "there is no matter down there" is null and void as proof that materialism is wrong. I agree materialism ...is idiotic, but for other reasons".

[LooksAeterna]

(contd.) Now would you kindly leave me alone ?

I am not interested in discussing Wilber. Rather I would encourage you to stop depending too much on what William Irwin Thompson called W's "undergraduate generalizations" study more serious stuff (like his sources for instance - example: Wilber praises Habermas as the greatest philosopher of our time but H disagrees with W's reading of H).

google "Bald Ambition" and also go to

integralworld. net/ readingroom. html

Del spaces

click on "Wilber".

[jhgosnell]

@LooksAeterna one last comment...i don't depend on it at all...rather, i think he's right. in this case, his take happens to fit my take. yes, i will kindly leave you alone as requested.

[LooksAeterna]

@jhgosnell Suit yourself, but what I mentioned is no matter of opinion. If he uses a demonstrably fallacious argument then it is objectively wrong, outside the domain of arbitrary opinion which is exclusively limited to the sphere of the uncertain. His argument was wrong in the mentioned sense, even though I agree with the conclusion as I mentioned earlier. This fallacy in his argumentation speaks volumes about the reliability stringency of his thought - as shown by others in many places.

[Avonaco76]

As spiritual as I think I am and I can be...this discussion was like taking a rubber band and snapping it against my brain....

[CloudshadowMan1]

It's interesting to consider that if we looked deeply enough into our brain it would be more like formless energy than matter. Peace and contentment to all beings.

[CosmicRuna]

there is a HUGE difference between these two sages and all of you chit chat mokeys...

they have DEDICATED their lives to their search but you all just have it as a hobby for after hours...

have some respect and listen

[chsmithe]

spirituality is really interesting but it's really starting to slowly piss me off. all of this consciousness talk. these lounge around poking fun at those who are less aware. perhaps they are just stating it is as it is but i smell an ego in their voice talking about those "others" who aren't quite as aware. isn't that a paradox? perhaps realization of the One is that there's no such thing as enlightened or unenlightened beings? it's all ONE. the whole lie dissolves itself.

[DJpoppa35]

every has an ego u cant get rid of it.. through awareness and diplomacy we can transcend it.. and its not jus ONE... but whole and part... we are whole ourselfs and part of something. and to be enlightened is to have strip the impediments.. and unenlightenment is to be stuck in the impediments... Transcend beyond... Use socratic Ignorance

[Pollther]

Actually, though, chsmithe has a point. According to Ramana Maharshi, the liberated sage is not aware of objects, the world, the body, the universe, activity, walking, talking, etc. only the onlooker under the illusion of the ego imagines a sage with a body walking, talking, etc.

Those who have experienced kevala samadhi return to the experience of the perception of a world, a body, etc., because the mind-ego that creates such a delusion-perception is not dead.

[mrenhensi9]

I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, it is the mind/ego which stands as our barrier to what Ross Bishop calls God Space, which has to be experienced, and can be, just as we experience mind/ego. Check him out! HIs last two newsletters address this very matter; Two Rooms-Part I and II. He was on Oprah radio, on July 11, 2009; St John Augustine. Also I love your use of the word paradox. To me getting there, the journey, is sooo about paradox! Happy hunting! and miles of smiles......

[chsmithe]

thank you for the reply i forgot all about this post.

[frankhaseyes]

exactly nothing ! if one is aware for himself thru experience, he is also aware for his brother which is made up of the same nothing/ something . seperation through words .lectures, philosophy or my own egotistic speach cant explain anything . in the end there is no cup to fill. nothing = ).

[doctorjay1976]

just listen to richard dawkins talk for 2 minutes and then you'll realize why they are "poking fun" of materialistic, godless "scientists" leading the world away from spirit.

[josesilva9910]

Too much afirmations and no proof.That smells like pseudoscience.

[DJpoppa35]

haha the proof is for u experience it.. these subjects is based on the listener to try it out this new awareness.. and if it works it.. it works... if it doesnt.. its doesnt... Life is a risk... Death can happen netime... live in to the fullest to have no regrets

[weeeezzll]

It's funny how critically they can examine science, but when it comes to their religion they fail to see the much more serious flaws.

[1988Mscott]

Ken Wilber isn't religious he is actually trying to integrate science, psychology, eastern philosophy, western philosophy, mysticism, etc into one system.

Also they aren't being critical of science they are being critical of materialism. (Plus the point of science is to be critical of it anyway).

All religions are based around mystical experience. All religions are flawed. However the mystical experience is valid. Look into it before mindlessly bashing it.

[weeeezzll]

Ken Wilber supports an "integral approach that evaluates both religious claims and scientific claims based on intersubjectivity" Integrating testimony into science would tear down the objectivity of the scientific process and make it worthless.

Listen to how he describes the "god spot" in the beginning. He misrepresents the research with an inaccurate summary of it's hypothesis, and uses it to setup a straw man argument against it. That is not constructive, it's just critical.

[Glass2007]

The intention is not to integrate spirituality into science. He claims that the differentiation of the value spheres (Art, Morals and Science; The Good the true and the beautiful; 1st person interior subjective awareness, 2nd person objective awareness and 3rd person awareness in its subjective and objective forms) is responsible for the revelations of modernity. For example religion being separated from science. Rather he is differentiating and then integrating into philosophy.

[TruthJockey]

It's the same story, from the Eleusinian Mysteries to Dante’s Inferno, from Jacob’s Ladder to Plato’s Cave – from the teachings of Socrates & Epicurus to the Academies of the Pythagoreans, Neoplatonists & Stoics, from the philosophies of Zen, Hinduism & traditional Buddhism to the scholarship of Nietzsche, Kant & Schopenhauer, from the Occultists to the Alchemists, from The Essenes & Gnosticism to Free Masonry & Rosicrucianism - from the Holy Grail quest to Jesus' death & resurrection motif.

[kingpharaohtsar]

@1988Mscott psychologicly speaking ur comment is self clarifying an 15 people have done the same thing intresting that i think

[josesilva9910]

Exactly.They say that physics is just "stories",what about their "mystical experiences".

[marco054]

Oke, great example why this mysterianism is not helping philosophy. This so called materialism they argue against is not upheld by philosophers for some 100 years now. The effect is that they fight against imaginary enemies (made a little stupider and easier to pin down) and winning a battle that is long over for decades. Makes it a bit cheesy in my eyes.

[Henatiera]

You didn´t get it. They argue that consiousness is an immanent quality of existence it self, and no modern philosophy is saying that(unless Heidegger), in the integral view, besides the premodern versions before the enlightenment, the last 300 years were completely BLIND, not unaware, not anti, but blind for the unreducible reality of consciousness. To tell the difference, you gotta know how radical they mean it!

[marco054]

I think I know how radical they mean it, that's why I oppose it. Heidegger (who really was a radical philosopher) said that the way humans are, is a special kind of being (being-there; existenz). These guys are saying everything is subjectivity. It's not new and not radical at all. And to my opinion not very helpful to understanding anything. But I could just not be getting it ;)

[Henatiera]

Oh, I forgot(and keep aware: I´m no native speaker): This debate is not just about philosophy(and if you think it´s main purpose is helping philosophy, you don´t understand the new view of such artefacts as philosophy, we don´t help them, we eat them!!), the natural sciences are still in the hands of positivism and naive empirism, even if there are a lot of glorious exceptions by now, AND, last but not least:

The new version of the philosophy of the subject, coming AFTER the ..second

[Henatiera]

Already there? Well, I have to say: I understand you. There are times when Wilber is talking too simplistic stuff, but he´s trying to play a big game(one can surely blame him for that)

Umm...yeah:.... AFTER the modern philosophies(objectivist/empir­istic/subject/atomist) and AFTER the postmodernists intersubjectivist/holist), so it is a postpostmodern philosophy, consciousness is something that goes form subj to obj to intersubj to interobj space, wait another sec....

[Henatiera]

or how Wilber would say, these dimensions of being in the world(subj/obj/inter-subj/obj)­, the 4 quadrants, are tetra-evolving.

If you take away meditation(which is the key to go beyond mere mental reproduction information), all there is Platon+Hegel+Buddhist/Hindu+ps­ychoanalysis, modern psychology+Postmodern theorists(mostly political, some ecologicals),

[marco054]

(no native speaker, same here) Meditation=doing something. Philosophy=thinking about the world. The major difference of opinion here is that meditation would give you knowledge about reality other than your own. I hear Wilber make all these claims about reality which he just states as if they are obvious. Theories I can appreciate but to imply to "bring the truth" is an inter human activity that is unforgivable these days imo. I don't mind his theories btw they just don't strike me as THE truth.

[Henatiera]

well, my main purpose was to show that its not a philosophy of the subject, cause thats so idiot-new age-like. But, my friend, meditating(other than your own? you mean mental Thoughts?)is the only activity you can do which lets you make make your subjectivity an object(as well) to your..SUBJECT without any artifacts(language, Biofeedback)There is a difference in being able to repeat a verbal code within a mentally structured context and to know something.Completely separate, hard to grasp I know

[SticksTweeks]

were not the body we are the soul...

[PoppinOtang]

Amen!

[joeyroo1]

are we trying to understand God, from our own intellectual minds?

God is outside our understandings

[eamonncake]

Is any of this stuff scientifically true? It makes philosophical sense, but I don't understand physics so I don't know.

[mercurius0]

like he said, it's a "likely story" but this kind of theoretical physics on the extremely small scale is impossible to prove. the loaf of bread theory will probably be replace with a completely new one in a few years.

[jtram21]

I don't think Brother Wayne found the G-spot metaphor very amusing. Although he didnt disagree either. lol.

[DustTown]

I've become a fan, IntegralNaked. Mr. Ken wilber, plz continue your effort to spread your ideas and develop new ones. I look forward to seeing you in the future.

[Stereolabdream]

Thank goodness...real philosophical Christianity, that adresses real Science. Sadly, this kind of discussion has been hijacked in recent years by well meaning cranks like "Dr" Kent Hovind in popular culture.

Science and Christianity DO co-exist, on a serious intellectual level.

[Censeo]

Gives a lot of thought.

Since we are in the universe, I believe we shouldn't even seek objective truth and actually confirm several models of the same thing as valid depending on how you wish to understand. Objectivism is a narrow path we can't ever get to fit all understanding in.

[audiograff]

"What the Bleep!? - Down the Rabbit Hole"

is an interesting flick on these grounds. It seems as though Ken has seen it and laughed alot. But it's beautiful fuel for the imagination. And beautiful loopholes in mathematics. "Don't mistake the map for the territory" as Robert Anton Wilson would say.

[barbarashinton]

Great.

[Stepper11]

I can never get over this guy's ability to articulate such seemingly complex material so clearly and succinctly.