I sometimes think our subjective consciousnesses are spinoffs of this like objective "god consciousness". I think our ego consciousness makes it possible to live in a world we can perceive as physical (no negative attribution to that) but that there are methods which might put one into contact with this Godmind. I almost see the physical universe as the Godbody, which humans are born into... but various states show us the objective "core consciousness"! i need to work on explaining this
Brilliant! I enjoyed the notion of science as a circular "essance" if you will. Neither progressing nor digressing but merely evolving. I noticed your selection of words will well thought-out. 5 stars brother!
Very interesting, I'll check her material out. And I take it that she includes pantheism into her work? Or maybe the the EN makes it different. Regardless, it sounds really cool...
This is an idealistic enterprise, to ignore the entire history of the West (& East) and bring it back to some kind of naive pantheism is unreal, are you saying that this was a waste of time, of 2000 years, or that nothing even if it was a negative was discovered?
Otherwise you'd be talking like a man on the moon who has no history and just chooses his fundamental ideas off the global glutton's menu.
Unless I am hearing you wrong, there's a flaw with this perspective. Which is the more pragmatic, ignoring 2000 years of the objective, or eons of the subjective? I am assuming the the video is trying to give credit to both, at least partially.
So maybe it's possible to examine the determinant hierarchy that is evolusionism itself in another way, to consider not only evolution but also involution, the various becomings (eg becoming animal--"to become animal is to participate in movement, to stake out the path of escape in all its possibility") that are "not regressions, although fragments of regression, sequences of regression may enter in".
In A Thousand Plateau, Deleuze suggests a new kind of evolution:
"Neoevolutionism seems important for two reasons: the animal is defined not by characteristics (specific, generic, etc.) but by populations that vary from milieu to milieu or within the same milieu; movements occurs not only, or not primarily, by filiative productions but also by transversal communications between heterogeneous populations" (Deleuze 239).
great vid. i disagree on one point though, the ability to look at biology and behavior from an objective viewpoint. to the extent that a human being is aware of their psychology/physiology, they can counteract emotions, even subconscious drives and process information on a simple logical level. yes, the degree of complexity of logic is limited by the physiology of the brain. but human-level logic is able to examine it's own biology objectively.
the caveat is any *intuitively* logical theory discovered (:created) to examine this, runs the risk of being derivative of human brain phys. but i think theories that are unintuitive and appear initially illogical (however valid) are more likely to not be derivative or dependent on our brain phys. but only slightly compatible, possibly in addition to other structural forms of "mindspace"? sci using computers/software/databases seems increasingly less intuitively logical or circular? good or bad?
Panentheism is of course much more logical than pantheism if one considers them by their modern philosophical definitions. Just what the 'material' universe would constitute without abstract laws and a spiritual realm is quite clear--absolutely nothing. Therefore, pantheism as 'the material universe' is rather non-sensical; but panentheism, the idea that 'God' constitutes the whole of reality, is certainly, tautologically, and absolutely true. Except that the word 'God' does not quite apply.
If we define the 'big bang' as the theoretical beginning point of time, then clearly there couldn't be anything 'before' this point at all; what there could be is a continuous, timeless consciousness which retroactively creates everything from a 'future' state of universal intelligence, an omnipotent creative intelligence which which is the source of the most general and all-encompassing laws of existence. When one thinks of it, the only plausible means by which there was a big bang is such.
That's kind of a theory I have... that we, humanity, evolve and merge with other alien and AI and ? intelligences and essentially become "God", Ultimate Mind -- and go about creating the universe.
That's kind of what you're saying here.
"...the only plausible means..." I dunno.
I don't think we can close the book on this yet. ;)
If one defines reality as 'all that is mutually real/effective with respect to this Creation' then both are correct. Ultimately, though, the logical definition of 'God'=Creation is that the universe is both contained within it and contains it. It is the only thing of this universe which lives up to this definition. The best word for it is 'Creation'=Schoepfung, as 'God' is etymologically a pluralistic and human title, whereas there is/can only be one Creation per universe.
ma che bel ragazzino ::))
federricoilgrande 3 weeks ago
Is that a washer or a very slow jet engine?
SLemonspunk 4 months ago
I sometimes think our subjective consciousnesses are spinoffs of this like objective "god consciousness". I think our ego consciousness makes it possible to live in a world we can perceive as physical (no negative attribution to that) but that there are methods which might put one into contact with this Godmind. I almost see the physical universe as the Godbody, which humans are born into... but various states show us the objective "core consciousness"! i need to work on explaining this
alistairproductions 6 months ago
you have fantastic eyes!
SunnyBananaView 1 year ago
You look like Julia Roberts...just saying.
PaperTowel1101 1 year ago
zzzzzzzzzz
ricky95713 1 year ago
Brilliant! I enjoyed the notion of science as a circular "essance" if you will. Neither progressing nor digressing but merely evolving. I noticed your selection of words will well thought-out. 5 stars brother!
VindicatedVigilante 2 years ago
very profound
xreddreads420x 2 years ago
I believe in both extremes simultaneously!
MorfeuV 2 years ago
I believe in both extremes simultaneously!
MorfeuV 2 years ago
Very interesting, I'll check her material out. And I take it that she includes pantheism into her work? Or maybe the the EN makes it different. Regardless, it sounds really cool...
AOEGuy 3 years ago
This is an idealistic enterprise, to ignore the entire history of the West (& East) and bring it back to some kind of naive pantheism is unreal, are you saying that this was a waste of time, of 2000 years, or that nothing even if it was a negative was discovered?
Otherwise you'd be talking like a man on the moon who has no history and just chooses his fundamental ideas off the global glutton's menu.
plenipotentiarius 3 years ago
Unless I am hearing you wrong, there's a flaw with this perspective. Which is the more pragmatic, ignoring 2000 years of the objective, or eons of the subjective? I am assuming the the video is trying to give credit to both, at least partially.
Let me know if I missed something.
ytcomposer 3 years ago
And is he also describing the sages of the ancient Mediterranean, Asia, Africa, and what is today South America as "creationists"?
pukeachu 1 year ago
So maybe it's possible to examine the determinant hierarchy that is evolusionism itself in another way, to consider not only evolution but also involution, the various becomings (eg becoming animal--"to become animal is to participate in movement, to stake out the path of escape in all its possibility") that are "not regressions, although fragments of regression, sequences of regression may enter in".
henryintelligence 3 years ago
In A Thousand Plateau, Deleuze suggests a new kind of evolution:
"Neoevolutionism seems important for two reasons: the animal is defined not by characteristics (specific, generic, etc.) but by populations that vary from milieu to milieu or within the same milieu; movements occurs not only, or not primarily, by filiative productions but also by transversal communications between heterogeneous populations" (Deleuze 239).
henryintelligence 3 years ago
great vid. i disagree on one point though, the ability to look at biology and behavior from an objective viewpoint. to the extent that a human being is aware of their psychology/physiology, they can counteract emotions, even subconscious drives and process information on a simple logical level. yes, the degree of complexity of logic is limited by the physiology of the brain. but human-level logic is able to examine it's own biology objectively.
regemo 3 years ago
the caveat is any *intuitively* logical theory discovered (:created) to examine this, runs the risk of being derivative of human brain phys. but i think theories that are unintuitive and appear initially illogical (however valid) are more likely to not be derivative or dependent on our brain phys. but only slightly compatible, possibly in addition to other structural forms of "mindspace"? sci using computers/software/databases seems increasingly less intuitively logical or circular? good or bad?
regemo 3 years ago
Great vid, Matt.
I think both extremes are true -- perhaps somewhere in the middle. I use the Multi-Model Approach -- called "fence sitting" by my detractors.
I see materialism and spirtuality as co-existing, simultaneously "true." It's "All" (pun intended) a matter of context.
See my other comment here, re pantheism/panentheism as hair-splitting.
I'm doing a video response to Gary's vid, where you and I were discussing your dilemma with consciousness arising from matter.
StevenErnest 3 years ago
Great video and interesting topic
I was not aware of panentheism before this video
Thanks for sharing this
I will go check out that video you responded to
HaleyMary 3 years ago
thank you
f417h 3 years ago
thanks for that link
that was a most needed positivity injection
first time someone encountered global warming as a possible chance - i'm totally baffled.
as an evolutionary biologist she must be aware about setbacks -
and that's the big question -
how big the setback will be before system change.
so it's up to you and the other young folks :o)
btw why panentheism and not panpsychism ?
Mork5 3 years ago
i recommend her videos in the sidebar,
After Darwin pt 1-3
Mork5 3 years ago
Panentheism is of course much more logical than pantheism if one considers them by their modern philosophical definitions. Just what the 'material' universe would constitute without abstract laws and a spiritual realm is quite clear--absolutely nothing. Therefore, pantheism as 'the material universe' is rather non-sensical; but panentheism, the idea that 'God' constitutes the whole of reality, is certainly, tautologically, and absolutely true. Except that the word 'God' does not quite apply.
elgaed42 3 years ago
Pantheism = "God" IS reality.
Panentheism = "God" is IN reality.
I've always found the first more logical.
Why do we need the dichotomy? That make it even more complex. Personally, I think it's just splitting hairs, but that's just me. ^_^
StevenErnest 3 years ago
no, panentheism = reality is in god (god being primal)
see also panpsychism
in the non-dual idealist view everything is one
so yes, hairsplitting.
but those who say god (consciousness, mental) was before big bang, could be without matter, a principle (logos) from which the material came later,
do panentheism.
this does not work with emergentism according to varela so i don't understand yet how matt is integrating this.
Mork5 3 years ago
If we define the 'big bang' as the theoretical beginning point of time, then clearly there couldn't be anything 'before' this point at all; what there could be is a continuous, timeless consciousness which retroactively creates everything from a 'future' state of universal intelligence, an omnipotent creative intelligence which which is the source of the most general and all-encompassing laws of existence. When one thinks of it, the only plausible means by which there was a big bang is such.
elgaed42 3 years ago
That's kind of a theory I have... that we, humanity, evolve and merge with other alien and AI and ? intelligences and essentially become "God", Ultimate Mind -- and go about creating the universe.
That's kind of what you're saying here.
"...the only plausible means..." I dunno.
I don't think we can close the book on this yet. ;)
StevenErnest 3 years ago
If one defines reality as 'all that is mutually real/effective with respect to this Creation' then both are correct. Ultimately, though, the logical definition of 'God'=Creation is that the universe is both contained within it and contains it. It is the only thing of this universe which lives up to this definition. The best word for it is 'Creation'=Schoepfung, as 'God' is etymologically a pluralistic and human title, whereas there is/can only be one Creation per universe.
elgaed42 3 years ago
Great Matt, thanx.
I'm going to watch it now.
amabodie2 3 years ago
Interesting stuff. I know how pantheists view the world, but I was not aware of panentheism before now.
mconn2112 3 years ago