Metapsychology: Beings with agency in the energy information order. Conversation w/Gregg Henriques.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- Following on from our series reflecting on the Metapsychology series with Jon Vervaeke, Zak Stein and Gregg Henriques, Jeff and I talk directly with Gregg Henriques from UTOK. We discuss where his unified theory of knowledge aligns and doesn't with an anthroposophical perspective on the nature of knowledge. This was a hugely enjoyable conversation where we both pushed and got push-back especially in the area of epistemology and ontology. Hope you enjoy the conversation as much as we did.
You can find Gregg here:
/ @unifiedtheoryofknowledge
#rudolfsteiner
#theoryofknowledge
#metacognition
#epistemology
Great conversation and nice flow! Wonderful to see these ideas weaving around. Thank you all! Will be listening for more
This world or age needs a conversation exactly like this more often and I appreciate all three of you engaging with this dialogue. We all can have an agreement that our society has reached an equilibrium of non functional behavior and we need to cognize the feedback we are observing to understand why our society has settled into this behavior. I do believe in my opinion we need to go back to our axioms and assumptions and build a new foundation. The cornerstone that was rejected but why was it rejected is where we need to start in my mind.
36:00 in I ZINGED when Angus asked that simple question. Reminding us all we need a concept to see hydrogen in the first place, so we are really talking about a hypothetical universality of concepts. Bam. Loved that!
This is so awesome.
Admire Gregg so much, I can tell he ENJOYS getting in there and I love that.
Gonna make comments
About life being present in organic systems. (6:00): is a cell really different from a water molecule, maybe, but is tissue that different from water? Some would disagree. Structured water and water movements beget tissue, tissue looks like solidified spiralling water streams, simple organisms move in the same way as water. An ontology that considers formative ethers can account for this, an ontology that sees the world as made of building blocks cannot.
@8:55 Gregg makes an important point and this is a major node of convergence I have with him. This proves an explanatory power in his narrative. It also speaks to an epistemological divergence with my understanding of origins. It is my contention ontology cannot be explained out of postulates but that postulates must be used to discover and experience and in fact to create new reality. That is to say ontological ground for the process of genesis cannot be established by transcendental realism because it remains at the point of postulate, theory and or model of the generative first principles. It is a permanent move into the scaffolding. Levin does something similar in small history with the embryological moment as absolutism of chemism as product of reproduction. I see why if the ontological presumption allows only for material causes. Folks feel they are grounded and that any non physical has to be a postulate. However when epistemology is a process without presumption rather than something packaged and possessed, the process of genesis is revealed and postulate becomes transparent and the pre physical experienced as generative and one finds oneself in a universe grounded in being that is the organizing principle of the world we perceive with our senses. A reason this is important to Psychology and much else is that it is an experience and unending potential for both intervention and explanation approved by reality not trying to prove what reality is. This Approval as consensus with reality is what science is trying to do with peer review. The problem is that first you have to accept an ontological explanation that has not been established with a scientific process of epistemological discovery. One might hear "If you don't believe in the big bang you don't believe in evolution contrary to all of the evidence". To be clear it is not that I don't think we are involved in an evolutionary process. Rather it is that I have discovered that chemicals and matter in motion are gestures and substance of a multiplicity of relational beings. This is already a profoundly complex ontological multiplex and is always coming into and out of existence in Heraclitian change and the unifying and organizing and generative principle in all of it is what we experience as thinking. Not your Modernist or Postmodernist notion of thinking, to be sure. As beings with embodied soul forces as self conscious we get to experience this organ producing process that exists as coherence all around us as an act of will in our soul and we notice before the day becomes too noisy that it has always been thus since the beginning. And then we fall asleep again into the world of appearances - yet evidence of origins shimmers differently than before in the light of day like a language that is familiar but just barely in-discern-able.
@20:00 there is an important albeit seemingly paper thin difference. I would say that we don't build our ontology but discover the mysteries via an epistemological process. As mentioned above, neither do we build up an epistemology as theoretical. Which isn't to say that theory is not massively important its just not the goal but a provisional moment in the operational process.
@1:02:40 I inadvertently and clumsily made a honking error in what I was trying to ask. My apologies to our guest and my partner and to those enjoying the conversation up to that point. Here is an excerpt I wrote to Gregg with some edits and additions :
"Toward the end I dropped the time bomb. I didn't mean for it to be a bomb but it had that effect. Though we could talk within the scope of the conversation about the time space continuum that is not what I meant to bring up re., directionality in the evolutionary arch from chemistry to self conscious being. I fell back on a lazy use of the phrase "the time space continuum". Which is not like me and what it connotes is not what I meant to bring in. In hindsight I can see very clearly how this upset the conversation as if I was trying to explode the conversation. My actual point of view is more like out of billions of years of evolution on earth that we both give heed to for proper context within a flash of a moment as this era we live in, there has been and is, a complex world that is at work. My narrative has not increased complexification as a whole but a unified reality of a multiplicity of spiritual beings with physiological, biological, geological features as gradual individualizing AND artifactualizing with arguably the most complex version in the materializing process being the human. The physiobiological increase in complexity is evident no doubt. I see this as an increased articulation of an existing complexity just as our complication (as opposed to the nuance of complexity) of the world is similarly and simulatively symptomatic.
I am not writing to argue my point of view. That would be served through real time dialogue. I write to clarify that my bringing in of time had more to do with directionality of the physical complexification narrative not an orthogonal insertion of quantum physics. I do believe that both quantum physics and my view on the subject of vast spans of time and space in relation to the self is adjacent to the conversation we were having. Also to clarify, epistemologically I do not think of this creative agency as outside of the universal but within as processes experienceable via a kind of intimacy with being. I recognize that that is a discussion that we could easily have building on the mutual understandings both of similarities and differences in our narratives. And I can see how the sloppy way I tried to respond threw a wrench into the big block engine we were firing on. It looked cringingly to me like some bad faith or dilettante booby trap. "
@50:00 reveals what we I would say is thinking as organizing principle universal to all systems. I would further add that when he suggests the rock would think or even the lobster for that matter the only epistemic process being revealed is at the level of species. The simpler the organism or mineral the more is it a reflection of the epistemic process as universal. So I would say the rock is an artifact of a universal epistemic process including something like all of the mineral world. Single cell organisms don't think as individuals but as a non local whole. It is only when we consider humans as individual selves actualizing concepts that we have a universal process embodied in each as a kind of species self contained and containing self individuating (me) and universalizing (I)
Mind is formless, thought seeks to give permanent form to formless mind and that form is known as belief..The intellect has been reading and interpreting the same old beliefs for thousands of yrs, passed down from generation to generation and the only thing that has changed is the titles used to name the old beliefs with new titles, labels, name, so meet the new boss same as the old boss only the names have changed..This is also why mankind is not fighting a new war or conflict, it's the same old war, so the question is, what has mankind learned from the past, answer NO-THING..Which means that mankind is insane, because he's been doing and believing the same thing over and over again expecting a new result