this was one of your greatest lectures, particularly in light of its currency in the political, economic, social, financial, ecological moment we exist in today. Your delivery style and thoughtful presentation are wonderfully listenable.
Whitehead points to where to begin; on page 166 of Process and Reality: " In the place of the Hegelian hierarchy of categories of thought, the philosophy of organism finds a hierarchy of categories of feeling." And what I never thought or heard before, on page 94 : " Every actual entity, in virtue of it's novelty, transcends it's universe, God included." //You based much of our society on Decartes, but also peer into Hegel....right?☺️ To think of what it means "to transcend"....is like having a shared reality but also each his very own...on page 178, he speaks of the perceptual mode...it starts getting really fantastic!
Couldn't help but be reminded of this verse during your video: Romans 8:19 NASBS For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
I do not believe that capitalism is inherently "domination oriented." The modern form of capitalism, dominated by large corporations, certainly is. But at its best capitalism is the free and voluntary interaction of individuals of "similar power levels" but different specializations for the betterment of both parties in each exchange. This is the "dream" of capitalism, but it has failed as utterly as the dream of communism has. I would put it to you that communism implies greater "control" than capitalism does, and therefore capitalism is superior. But I totally agree that we should seek to "re-invent" capitalism in a way that tries to maintain this "relatively equal overall power levels" aspect of it. We should limit the size of economic entities so that markets look more like what economists call "perfect competition." We should watch out for exploitative situations and take steps to remove them, etc. But in the end we should leave people *free* to interact with one another as they choose - there is nothing wrong with that part of the vision.
My more recent thinking on this subject: cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069/1723 In short, I agree that state communism is worse than capitalism in many respects. But at present Western societies are far too dominated by the corporate capitalist system, which has taken control of more than just the economy, but has also commodified cultural life and hijacked government by basically putting politicians on their payroll. Free markets are great, but only if we have a functioning democratic state to assure fairness and equality, and a vibrant cultural life that prevents us from becoming addicted to consumer goods we don't actually need via the manufacture of desire. There's nothing wrong with products that make life tasks easier or more enjoyable, but at this point most of the capitalist economy is driven by the creation of new desires rather than the meeting of needs. Indeed, many people in our society do not have their basic needs met.
@@Footnotes2Plato Absolutely agree that corporations have too much power. I really think our primary goal in "public guidance of the economy" should be to avoid that. I don't know exactly how, but at times I've wondered if it could be done with nothing more than the tax system. Impose ever larger taxes on corporations as they grow - hopefully they would split up of their own accord to capture the most profit. If that didn't do the job, we'd need to be more... invasive. I remember when I was young the federal government still did "trust busting," but the last of those I remember was AT&T / Bell. These days when corporations misbehave they just get slapped with a fine that's too small to get them to change their practices. The fine just becomes a cost of doing business. 😞 Also it might be REALLY hard to get this done now that we've let them get as powerful as they are - no way they'd just roll over for it. Thank you for the link - I will read that this evening. Stay safe; hope you have great holidays!
I’d recommend a much informed documentary of this matters (as broad as that might sound) called “The century of the self” by a guy who I can’t remember the name but he works with the BBC. it goes perfectly with “Adventure of ideas” which I’m currently getting myself into
Great Video man, if you haven't already gone into it I would watch Tim Ingold's "one world anthropology" talk, and read "The Ontological Turn" by Holbraad and Pedersen, as well as anything by Viveiros de Castro. Its super relevant to multinaturalism.
As regards government's part in all this debate, disagreement and conversational over-simplifying of past, actual human efforts to establish a "natural/god-given" order, it might be best to not go beyond a "guarantee of freedom of religion." Thanks again for another thoughtful piece.
Do you study Gregory Bateson and the Ecology of Mind (it looks like on your website in 2010 you briefly quoted him)? I noticed that in your Incarnational Philosophy lecture which used Deleuze and Whitehead, you used a William Blake painting (right?). Blake is very important to Bateson, as is Whitehead (Bateson’s etiology of schizophrenia used Russel and Whitehead’s theory of Logical Types), and also Deleuze’s use of the “intensive plateau”-as in thousand plateaus-comes from Bateson’s ethnography Naven. Do you already know these things (I ask because use of Deleuze and Whitehead and William Blake suggest that Bateson would interest you)? If you indeed are familiar with Bateson’s thought, then why your preference for Latour as an inspiration or guide toward “ecologizing”? I’m curious because I find Bateson a much more interesting and rich “ecologizer” than Latour (a personal opinion-I just find reading him more provocative and exciting). I’m excited to share him. No one seems to talk about him explicitly outside of the field of Family Therapy.
If you are more knowledgeable about philosophy of myth, then maybe you could consider making some videos on the topic? It would be a valuable contribution. Also, it would be nice to see those unknown [to me, of course] takes on myth (Fichte, Schelling) compared with more recent or more known (Jung, Joseph Campbell). What say you?
I definitely agree that we should be seeking to work in tandem with nature as opposed to "dominating" it. But I don't think that rules out "modernizing." It rules out the *way* we have pursued modernization. But we could do it differently.
Axiology = the systematic study of values/ethics. Every choice we make generates a corresponding timeline of experience. Is the resulting narrative a limit or a creative guideline? No wrong answer - only another choice. Whatever the living fire of conscious attention dwells on today, we dwell in tomorrow. Watch a horror movie today, live through the horror stories in the news tomorrow. Ultimately, the most significant choice we make at any moment of the day, is between unconscious compulsive reaction and conscious creative response.
This is the most practical and best explanation as to a way out of postmodernity, while retaining some of its more valuable critiques. I'm more on the reactionary (perhaps not neo) perennial side of things, but I find many Pomo writing to be salvageable and useful. My thing is sort of anti-modernism and postmodernism meeting in the middle! ;) Side note: the one problem is that "multiculturalism" now a days in liberal modernity only serves to destroy and homogenize world cultures, culture is rendered into trinkets and consumable items like ethnic restaurants. The modern lib simply views everyone as a westerner willing to come out of their skin.
i would tend to think of myself as liberal, but i understand that in america especially that term has a number of different meanings. my view of multiculturalism would be to let each culture be itself, provided it do no harm. for example it is correct that FGM is being made illegal. education tends to create common meeting points around say the sciences. what alternative to multiculturalism would you suggest?
Don't know why I skipped this video... You're not just "thinking out loud" in this one... Is Postmodernism the main culprit in the current state of affairs ? Or is it "the end of history" (Huntington), that is to say of Hegelian dialectics ? Pragmatically and strategically, doesn't ecology stand to gain from being viewed as a new antithesis rather than as some revealed truth ? In your blog, you already stated your conviction "we don't belong to ourselves". But I'm sure you realize that three of your fundamental claims here are obviously exposing your proposition to being hijacked : 1/ Human beings need myths. 2/ To some extent, the divine has its place in politics. 3/ The concept of individual should be questioned. I recuse the first assertion, whose validity, by the way, you're not demonstrating : how do myths bring us closer to the truth ? How are they not too merely the expression of our neuroses ? As for the remaining two, I think I understand your perspective, but I need you to tell me how it differs from, for instance, what would motivate a new SCOTUS to annul Roe v. Wade. And, once again, I ask you : should the fundamental human rights safeguarded by well-known international treaties and national constitutions be subjected to permanent re-negotiation ? Diplomacy is key, you say. But, at the end of the day, just like the eagle has two sets of claws, one holding arrows, the other an olive branch, what could diplomacy accomplish without the threat to use force ? And is the diplomacy of the carrot and the stick the one you're advocating ? Diplomacy isn't neutral : there is no such thing as a levelled playing field in representative politics. And that's something Latour should know by now. Your conclusion, to me, sounds like pure poetry : planetary cosmological love, without either extinction or destruction in sight. Forget about Andromeda. Or rather think of it as a giant sexual explosion to come... I'll further refrain from being sarcastic. I know what Richard Alpert was referring to when he described his first OOBE. But an OOBE and our perceptions during one are not permanent; they're a window : distinction (aka division) is a reality of the tangible world. One should be aware of the former; one can't overlook the latter. "Make the best of all the worlds we live in"... Huxley's exhortation in his interview with Herman Harvey was marked by genuine wisdom. Listening to his interview with Mike Wallace is one of the many ways to understand why there needs to be a frontier between public and private life. And, since you'll never be able to persuade me and millions of others of the contrary, does that mean your endeavor is doomed to fail ? History keeps showing us what the result of an abolition of the distinction between public and private looks like : the triumph of domination. If we except the Orwellian surveillance state, the US has been spared by totalitarianism so far, from a non-slave-descendant's and a non-'Indian' perspective. Perhaps that's why you have some trouble integrating this crucial dimension into your way of thinking. And perhaps that's also why your ideal better remain a myth...
God damn yes, I think you can see the arrogance in the 'rationalist' stand point when you listen to Denette talk about panpsychism. Asserting science does not refute philosophy.
@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine I still think that panexperientalism (a kind of panpsychist philosophy) is essentially irrefutable. Otherwise it seems unexplainable
@@tylermacdonald8924 yeah you need perspective, why they are still doing this? When I'm 90. And it's art and words with all these diagrams to synthesize reality but I don't have time for that. And you didn't get it.
@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine Maybe... I am not sure exactly what you mean but we don't need all of reality in a doctrine. Just enough for it to realize how it can't
I'm a Deleuzian and this is basically fascism. It's not about establishing an ontology of multi "naturalism" (which is ridiculous from the very definition of nature, what is nature? Ho do you construct an ontology of nature whenever the knowledge you have on it is not complete and partial, depending on your epistemology?) inasmuch as it is about taking advantage of the schizoid nature of capitalism to enact a becoming minoritarian of the big axiomatic of postmodern capitalism. It's about making sure that differences can be together peacefully in a plan of becoming, not about establishing a "Multinaturalism" based on a reestablishment of multiple transcendent phallocratic signifiers that are, according to this theory, never destined to really come together. This gives room for hatred between different communities. This philosophy is Putin's dream when he says that Ukrainians are Nazis. And if you didn't understand, start studying real philosophy, not this BS (that is, btw, accepted in the highest ranking academic journals in the world, as the fucker associate editor of one of those I had an argument with a couple of days ago liked to remind me)
Hi, I'm not a fascist. Putin's dream? Me thinks you are missing the boat here. How do you construct an epistemology without presupposing an ontology? There's a loop here, an entanglement, but by making construction a cosmological category rather than merely anthropological/social, we can remain open to incompleteness not only of our knowledge but of being/becoming itself. What transcendent signifiers are you talking about, exactly? The fact that there may be hatred between people is a distinct issue from the normative claim that we ought to love one another or at least find common ground. I think we can find common ground, but it seems self-evident that there will always be some degree of agonism among humans, and indeed all organisms. Sorry you had a negative interaction with an editor but maybe process that before lashing out at strangers.
What do you think of islam? I mean while the bible and teachings of jesus have indeed high value( not christianity as a religion though), the quran and Mohammad do not. With islam it is hard to argue against the claim that religion is indeed a delusion and harm.
I think you over widen the meaning of religion, myth, spiritual and divine to hide it’s meaning. The fact that humans are narrative-building machines does not justify gods (which are by definition supernatural). It’s the supernatural that Dennett rejects, not the existence and importance of narratives. There is absolutely no evidence that the supernatural is even logically consistent, let alone real. Your critique of Dennett here is a strawman.
Nature is not a machine. That’s a very anthropomorphic idea. Nature is organic through and through. Whitehead’s god is not supernatural. Philosophy is all about redefinition.
I don't think gods are supernatural...I think they reflect patterns of nature! I will add that mind is also nature...and in some sense nature is a mind. But you may have to change your thought paradigm to see that sense.
You say, "There is absolutely no evidence that the supernatural is even logically consistent". Well without getting into what you even mean by "supernatural", I will point out that any logically consistent system of even modest complexity (i.e. Peano arithmetic), is incomplete, as shown by Goedel. Therefore, if we seek complete understanding, we must look outside of logically consistent systems. This is not, by the way, to dismiss such systems, nor to deny their value. But a logically consistent system cannot encompass Truth-with-a-capital-T, even on its own terms, since logic itself was used to show that logic is limited.
![เปิดบ้าน นาราเครปกระเทย 1 ไร่ ขายขาดทุนหลัก10ล้าน เอามาใช้หนี้!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jz84VFWVP4/mqdefault.jpg)
this was one of your greatest lectures, particularly in light of its currency in the political, economic, social, financial, ecological moment we exist in today. Your delivery style and thoughtful presentation are wonderfully listenable.
Whitehead points to where to begin; on page 166 of Process and Reality: " In the place of the Hegelian hierarchy of categories of thought, the philosophy of organism finds a hierarchy of categories of feeling." And what I never thought or heard before, on page 94 : " Every actual entity, in virtue of it's novelty, transcends it's universe, God included." //You based much of our society on Decartes, but also peer into Hegel....right?☺️ To think of what it means "to transcend"....is like having a shared reality but also each his very own...on page 178, he speaks of the perceptual mode...it starts getting really fantastic!
As a humanitarian it's a moral imperative to inform you that *_you're utterly fucking full of shit._*
@@soundgardener4940 you should have done more editing on that post. a laxative perhaps?
Couldn't help but be reminded of this verse during your video: Romans 8:19 NASBS
For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
I do not believe that capitalism is inherently "domination oriented." The modern form of capitalism, dominated by large corporations, certainly is. But at its best capitalism is the free and voluntary interaction of individuals of "similar power levels" but different specializations for the betterment of both parties in each exchange. This is the "dream" of capitalism, but it has failed as utterly as the dream of communism has. I would put it to you that communism implies greater "control" than capitalism does, and therefore capitalism is superior. But I totally agree that we should seek to "re-invent" capitalism in a way that tries to maintain this "relatively equal overall power levels" aspect of it. We should limit the size of economic entities so that markets look more like what economists call "perfect competition." We should watch out for exploitative situations and take steps to remove them, etc. But in the end we should leave people *free* to interact with one another as they choose - there is nothing wrong with that part of the vision.
My more recent thinking on this subject: cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069/1723
In short, I agree that state communism is worse than capitalism in many respects. But at present Western societies are far too dominated by the corporate capitalist system, which has taken control of more than just the economy, but has also commodified cultural life and hijacked government by basically putting politicians on their payroll. Free markets are great, but only if we have a functioning democratic state to assure fairness and equality, and a vibrant cultural life that prevents us from becoming addicted to consumer goods we don't actually need via the manufacture of desire. There's nothing wrong with products that make life tasks easier or more enjoyable, but at this point most of the capitalist economy is driven by the creation of new desires rather than the meeting of needs. Indeed, many people in our society do not have their basic needs met.
@@Footnotes2Plato Absolutely agree that corporations have too much power. I really think our primary goal in "public guidance of the economy" should be to avoid that. I don't know exactly how, but at times I've wondered if it could be done with nothing more than the tax system. Impose ever larger taxes on corporations as they grow - hopefully they would split up of their own accord to capture the most profit. If that didn't do the job, we'd need to be more... invasive. I remember when I was young the federal government still did "trust busting," but the last of those I remember was AT&T / Bell. These days when corporations misbehave they just get slapped with a fine that's too small to get them to change their practices. The fine just becomes a cost of doing business. 😞 Also it might be REALLY hard to get this done now that we've let them get as powerful as they are - no way they'd just roll over for it.
Thank you for the link - I will read that this evening. Stay safe; hope you have great holidays!
I’d recommend a much informed documentary of this matters (as broad as that might sound) called “The century of the self” by a guy who I can’t remember the name but he works with the BBC. it goes perfectly with “Adventure of ideas” which I’m currently getting myself into
Thanks Matt for all the wonderful stuff you have put up on TH-cam and in footnotes2Plato.
It is so cool that you articulate ontology with critic of neoliberalism.
Great Video man, if you haven't already gone into it I would watch Tim Ingold's "one world anthropology" talk, and read "The Ontological Turn" by Holbraad and Pedersen, as well as anything by Viveiros de Castro. Its super relevant to multinaturalism.
As regards government's part in all this debate, disagreement and conversational over-simplifying of past, actual human efforts to establish a "natural/god-given" order, it might be best to not go beyond a "guarantee of freedom of religion." Thanks again for another thoughtful piece.
Do you study Gregory Bateson and the Ecology of Mind (it looks like on your website in 2010 you briefly quoted him)? I noticed that in your Incarnational Philosophy lecture which used Deleuze and Whitehead, you used a William Blake painting (right?). Blake is very important to Bateson, as is Whitehead (Bateson’s etiology of schizophrenia used Russel and Whitehead’s theory of Logical Types), and also Deleuze’s use of the “intensive plateau”-as in thousand plateaus-comes from Bateson’s ethnography Naven. Do you already know these things (I ask because use of Deleuze and Whitehead and William Blake suggest that Bateson would interest you)? If you indeed are familiar with Bateson’s thought, then why your preference for Latour as an inspiration or guide toward “ecologizing”? I’m curious because I find Bateson a much more interesting and rich “ecologizer” than Latour (a personal opinion-I just find reading him more provocative and exciting). I’m excited to share him. No one seems to talk about him explicitly outside of the field of Family Therapy.
Unfortunately no answer!
You may be right.
If you are more knowledgeable about philosophy of myth, then maybe you could consider making some videos on the topic? It would be a valuable contribution.
Also, it would be nice to see those unknown [to me, of course] takes on myth (Fichte, Schelling) compared with more recent or more known (Jung, Joseph Campbell).
What say you?
I definitely agree that we should be seeking to work in tandem with nature as opposed to "dominating" it. But I don't think that rules out "modernizing." It rules out the *way* we have pursued modernization. But we could do it differently.
You need to have Richard Wagner's music playing in the background while you speak
I find Generative Anthropology provides a good framework for response to postmodernism
Absolutely beautiful. Pleasure to listen to.
Well done. Thanks
Axiology = the systematic study of values/ethics.
Every choice we make generates a corresponding timeline of experience. Is the resulting narrative a limit or a creative guideline? No wrong answer - only another choice.
Whatever the living fire of conscious attention dwells on today, we dwell in tomorrow. Watch a horror movie today, live through the horror stories in the news tomorrow.
Ultimately, the most significant choice we make at any moment of the day, is between unconscious compulsive reaction and conscious creative response.
Gotta say, the lecture helped me get some good sleep in the first listen :) [second time though was very interesting ;) ]
This is the most practical and best explanation as to a way out of postmodernity, while retaining some of its more valuable critiques. I'm more on the reactionary (perhaps not neo) perennial side of things, but I find many Pomo writing to be salvageable and useful. My thing is sort of anti-modernism and postmodernism meeting in the middle! ;)
Side note: the one problem is that "multiculturalism" now a days in liberal modernity only serves to destroy and homogenize world cultures, culture is rendered into trinkets and consumable items like ethnic restaurants. The modern lib simply views everyone as a westerner willing to come out of their skin.
i would tend to think of myself as liberal, but i understand that in america especially that term has a number of different meanings. my view of multiculturalism would be to let each culture be itself, provided it do no harm. for example it is correct that FGM is being made illegal. education tends to create common meeting points around say the sciences. what alternative to multiculturalism would you suggest?
Brilliant, thank you
Don't know why I skipped this video... You're not just "thinking out loud" in this one...
Is Postmodernism the main culprit in the current state of affairs ? Or is it "the end of history" (Huntington), that is to say of Hegelian dialectics ? Pragmatically and strategically, doesn't ecology stand to gain from being viewed as a new antithesis rather than as some revealed truth ?
In your blog, you already stated your conviction "we don't belong to ourselves". But I'm sure you realize that three of your fundamental claims here are obviously exposing your proposition to being hijacked :
1/ Human beings need myths.
2/ To some extent, the divine has its place in politics.
3/ The concept of individual should be questioned.
I recuse the first assertion, whose validity, by the way, you're not demonstrating : how do myths bring us closer to the truth ? How are they not too merely the expression of our neuroses ? As for the remaining two, I think I understand your perspective, but I need you to tell me how it differs from, for instance, what would motivate a new SCOTUS to annul Roe v. Wade. And, once again, I ask you : should the fundamental human rights safeguarded by well-known international treaties and national constitutions be subjected to permanent re-negotiation ?
Diplomacy is key, you say. But, at the end of the day, just like the eagle has two sets of claws, one holding arrows, the other an olive branch, what could diplomacy accomplish without the threat to use force ? And is the diplomacy of the carrot and the stick the one you're advocating ? Diplomacy isn't neutral : there is no such thing as a levelled playing field in representative politics. And that's something Latour should know by now.
Your conclusion, to me, sounds like pure poetry : planetary cosmological love, without either extinction or destruction in sight. Forget about Andromeda. Or rather think of it as a giant sexual explosion to come... I'll further refrain from being sarcastic.
I know what Richard Alpert was referring to when he described his first OOBE. But an OOBE and our perceptions during one are not permanent; they're a window : distinction (aka division) is a reality of the tangible world. One should be aware of the former; one can't overlook the latter. "Make the best of all the worlds we live in"... Huxley's exhortation in his interview with Herman Harvey was marked by genuine wisdom. Listening to his interview with Mike Wallace is one of the many ways to understand why there needs to be a frontier between public and private life. And, since you'll never be able to persuade me and millions of others of the contrary, does that mean your endeavor is doomed to fail ? History keeps showing us what the result of an abolition of the distinction between public and private looks like : the triumph of domination. If we except the Orwellian surveillance state, the US has been spared by totalitarianism so far, from a non-slave-descendant's and a non-'Indian' perspective. Perhaps that's why you have some trouble integrating this crucial dimension into your way of thinking. And perhaps that's also why your ideal better remain a myth...
God damn yes, I think you can see the arrogance in the 'rationalist' stand point when you listen to Denette talk about panpsychism. Asserting science does not refute philosophy.
@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine I still think that panexperientalism (a kind of panpsychist philosophy) is essentially irrefutable. Otherwise it seems unexplainable
@@tylermacdonald8924 yeah you need perspective, why they are still doing this? When I'm 90. And it's art and words with all these diagrams to synthesize reality but I don't have time for that. And you didn't get it.
@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine Maybe... I am not sure exactly what you mean but we don't need all of reality in a doctrine. Just enough for it to realize how it can't
I'm a Deleuzian and this is basically fascism. It's not about establishing an ontology of multi "naturalism" (which is ridiculous from the very definition of nature, what is nature? Ho do you construct an ontology of nature whenever the knowledge you have on it is not complete and partial, depending on your epistemology?) inasmuch as it is about taking advantage of the schizoid nature of capitalism to enact a becoming minoritarian of the big axiomatic of postmodern capitalism. It's about making sure that differences can be together peacefully in a plan of becoming, not about establishing a "Multinaturalism" based on a reestablishment of multiple transcendent phallocratic signifiers that are, according to this theory, never destined to really come together. This gives room for hatred between different communities. This philosophy is Putin's dream when he says that Ukrainians are Nazis.
And if you didn't understand, start studying real philosophy, not this BS (that is, btw, accepted in the highest ranking academic journals in the world, as the fucker associate editor of one of those I had an argument with a couple of days ago liked to remind me)
Hi, I'm not a fascist. Putin's dream? Me thinks you are missing the boat here. How do you construct an epistemology without presupposing an ontology? There's a loop here, an entanglement, but by making construction a cosmological category rather than merely anthropological/social, we can remain open to incompleteness not only of our knowledge but of being/becoming itself. What transcendent signifiers are you talking about, exactly? The fact that there may be hatred between people is a distinct issue from the normative claim that we ought to love one another or at least find common ground. I think we can find common ground, but it seems self-evident that there will always be some degree of agonism among humans, and indeed all organisms. Sorry you had a negative interaction with an editor but maybe process that before lashing out at strangers.
What do you think of islam? I mean while the bible and teachings of jesus have indeed high value( not christianity as a religion though), the quran and Mohammad do not. With islam it is hard to argue against the claim that religion is indeed a delusion and harm.
I think you over widen the meaning of religion, myth, spiritual and divine to hide it’s meaning. The fact that humans are narrative-building machines does not justify gods (which are by definition supernatural). It’s the supernatural that Dennett rejects, not the existence and importance of narratives. There is absolutely no evidence that the supernatural is even logically consistent, let alone real. Your critique of Dennett here is a strawman.
Nature is not a machine. That’s a very anthropomorphic idea. Nature is organic through and through. Whitehead’s god is not supernatural. Philosophy is all about redefinition.
I don't think gods are supernatural...I think they reflect patterns of nature! I will add that mind is also nature...and in some sense nature is a mind. But you may have to change your thought paradigm to see that sense.
You say, "There is absolutely no evidence that the supernatural is even logically consistent". Well without getting into what you even mean by "supernatural", I will point out that any logically consistent system of even modest complexity (i.e. Peano arithmetic), is incomplete, as shown by Goedel. Therefore, if we seek complete understanding, we must look outside of logically consistent systems. This is not, by the way, to dismiss such systems, nor to deny their value. But a logically consistent system cannot encompass Truth-with-a-capital-T, even on its own terms, since logic itself was used to show that logic is limited.
There’s also no evidence that the existence itself is logically consistent. It does exist, but logically how?