The Blind Spot in Perception: Cognitive Science, Asian Philosophy, and Mystical Insight
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2024
- Evan Thompson is a philosopher and author, specializing in the integration of cognitive science, philosophy of mind, and Asian philosophical traditions. Based at the University of British Columbia, his work, including his recent book 'The Blind Spot', examines the intersections of consciousness, experience, and reality through a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach.
Can cognitive science, philosophy, and mysticism hold the keys to resolving our modern meaning crisis?
Join John Vervaeke and Evan Thompson in a captivating exploration of how these disciplines converge to address this pressing issue. The conversation showcases Thompson's interdisciplinary approach, drawing from his work on 'The Blind Spot' and his extensive background in Asian philosophy and phenomenology. Gain fresh perspectives on the essence of lived experience, the power of relevance realization, and the nature of reality as the discussion unfolds. Prepare for an intellectual journey that promises to deepen our understanding of truth, goodness, and beauty and bridge the gaps between diverse intellectual traditions.
Support John's groundbreaking work and gain exclusive access to live Q&A sessions, early video releases, and more by joining our Patreon community! / johnvervaeke
Immerse yourself in the groundbreaking insights of Evan Thompson's thought-provoking book, "The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience.” www.amazon.com/Blind-Spot-Sci...
-
“"The blind spot is the inability to see, or to recognize, or to acknowledge that lived experience is the source of science. And so if you undercut the source of science by occluding lived experience, you're actually damaging science." - Evan Thompson [00:19:34]
"The process of formalization of translating things into a formal system is always an ill-defined problem that requires relevance realization." - John Vervaeke [00:30:52]
-
00:00 Introduction to Evan Thompson and 'The Blind Spot'
01:05 Evan Thompson's Background and Philosophical Journey
02:10 Diving Into 'The Blind Spot': A Book on the Meaning Crisis
09:30 Exploring Core Ideas and Arguments of 'The Blind Spot'
18:15 Addressing the Meaning Crisis: Science, Experience, and Reality
18:55 Navigating Between Science Triumphalism and Denial
21:30 The Role of Experience in Understanding Reality
31:25 Challenging the Bifurcation of Nature and the 'View from Nowhere'
38:45 Sacredness, Reality, and the Meaning Crisis
40:30 Exploring the Sacred Beyond Science
41:55 Exploring the Depths of the Sacred and Ultimate Concern: Secular vs. Transcendental Perspectives
47:45 The Axial Revolution and Its Impact on Modern Consciousness
56:45 Challenges and Opportunities in Bridging Science and Mysticism
59:54 Philosophical Reflections on Truth, Beauty, and the Good
01:11:10 Concluding Thoughts and Future Dialogues
-
Join the Vervaeke Foundation in our mission to advance the scientifically rigorous pursuit of wisdom and make a meaningful impact in the world. vervaekefoundation.org/
Discover practices that deepen your virtues and help you connect more deeply with reality and relationships by joining Awaken to Meaning today. awakentomeaning.com/
-
Idea, Authors, and Works Mentioned in this Episode
The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience - book co-authored by Evan Thompson, Adam Frank, and Marcelo Gleiser
Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy - book by Evan Thompson
Why I Am Not a Buddhist - book by Evan Thompson
Contact with Reality - book by Esther Lightcap Meek
The Nothingness Beyond God - book by Robert Edgar Carter
Maurice Merleau-Ponty
Edmund Husserl
Martin Heidegger
William James
Galileo Galilei
Nishida Kitaro
Alfred North Whitehead
Nancy Cartwright
René Descartes
Robert Kreese
Paul Tillich
Michael Polanyi
Michael Schellenberger
Susan Wolf
Ursula Goodenough
Immanuel Kant
-
Follow John Vervaeke:
johnvervaeke.com/
/ vervaeke_john
/ @johnvervaeke
/ johnvervaeke
Follow Evan Thompson:
evanthompson.me/
/ evantthompson
/ evan.timothy.thompson
-
Thank you for watching!
Embark on a journey of self-discovery and meaning by joining our supportive Patreon community 👉 www.patreon.com/johnvervaeke
I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence.
The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics.
Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial?
Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses?
Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral?
Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous?
If so, then you are objectively immoral, and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
What an incredible conversation! As soon as I saw this interview I changed my plans and watched immediately. I got turned on to Evan's work from you mentioning him in AFTMC, and I have since read all his books-- in particular "Why I'm Not a Buddhist", which I've reread several times. The reason why I keep going back to that book isn't just because there's so much depth to it, in which I get more out of it with each reading-- but more importantly it gives me a useful framework to critically, respectfully, and reverently approach Daoism and the many practices associated with it (usually incorrectly). In a way I'm writing my own "Why I'm Not a Daoist" book (as a longtime practitioner of Taiji, Bagua and Qigong, and a naturalist who doesn't believe in Qi as a vital force, but as a polyvalent metaphor...). Please read that book ASAP and have him back on to discuss it!
So great to see you two in dialogue. I’m reading Evan and co.’s book asap!
Thanks Matt!! I hope you are well!!
You're cool too, man 🙂
I have to say, yours is one of the best channels I have found. Every time I listen, I find deeper insights into myself through extrapolating the ramifications of the topics to my experiences. While taking note of the way those ramifications buttress or shake my moral set.
It always takes me at least two hours longer than your videos are, because I incessantly pause the video to ponder many different aspects of what is being discussed.
Good job guys! And Thanks.
What a fabulous conversation. I continue to be wowed by the quality of insight emerging from this ongoing discourse, I have been a fan of your work for a few years now, John. And I came to know some of Evan's thinking via his 2007 work with Dan Zahavi. Phenomenology is the framing of my current PhD research being applied with some practical aspiration in my world of management of commercial projects. I have bought this book immediately but I am so thrilled to see your conceptualisations and contemporary phenomenology resonating so powerfully in 2024. Thank you!!!
So excited for this one! Thank you for the time stamps
Thank you for helping me to work through a 'meaning crisis'.. to put it simply. I hope that I can help others by telling my truth but it's not always easy to express in the way that I feel honors the actuality & beauty of it all in just a few paragraphs.. & I don't want to come across as arrogant or prideful but the ways & the things I've learned need to be expressed- in the name of love & science.
Excellent to finally get a feel for Evan Thompson and his work. Mystical immanence resounds greatly within my phenomenological being.
The cross overs between your dialogos with guests and Matt Segalls dialogos with his guests is exceedingly rich.
Thank you once again.
Oh how I love Evan Thompson!
Can’t wait for a spare moment to get the new book.
John, you’re looking well. Great convo. Sending hugs 🙏🏽❤️
Thanks Alexandra. I hope you are well.
@@johnvervaeke very well thanks. Awaiting ethics approval for my first insight research project. Exciting times. I’ll keep you posted.
This is a lovely dialogue. Thanks for sharing!
So much food for thought! Thanks a lot!
Thanks so much for this conversation John and Evan, I greatly enjoyed this book and believe it to be quite important.
My mind continues to be expanded by this provoking content. I am reading The Nothingness Beyond God so this conversation is timely for me.
This was a good conversation. I enjoyed it a lot. However, I think the second edition of "The Blind Spot" would gain something important from Schopenhauer, who put a lot of focus on intuitive cognition (perception), made an important distinction between intuitive cognition and reason, introduced the gradation of abstractions (concepts being subsumed in more general ones), and saw that intuitive cognition as very most important for doing science, and who predated phenomenologists (Husserl and others).
It’s fascinating how western knowledge system is struggling through, almost gnaw at, all of its predicaments, and how it all circles back to the severance from the land (or biosphere as Evan said)… meanwhile indigenous cultures (who never experienced the axial revolution and the subsequent Cartesian shift) have been offering an answer to these gnawing predicaments through their language systems, their pedagogies, their ways of being… and now we are going through all these mental acrobatics only to arrive to what a cree (for example) knowledge holder considers basic understanding of reality and being.
I suppose we got ourselves into this mess through mental acrobatics, so it makes sense that mental acrobatics will be the predominant tool to get out of it.
John, without your work I wouldn’t even be able to articulate what I just said. However, imagine what would be possible, in terms of breaking frame, if you had these same conversations with an indigenous knowledge holder from Toronto, the land where all your work happens. What a land acknowledgment that would be!(I.e it would be the antithesis of the empty “land acknowledgments” we are all sick of that have become standard practice)
The Chinese hero Sun Wen's philosophy is alternative. He was medical doctor, so was evolutionary thinker, evolutionary social development which is similarly of lived experience West philosophers maintain, and he also integrated love and toleration to his social systematic thoughts.
I deeply agree to Dr.Vervaeke that cognitive science is good profession to resolve modern meaning crisis.
The blind spot is when we follow social norm which is very often connective to right and enchroachment, so is issue, if we think strength of thoughts first, it would be understood that science can be rescue purpose too.
Thanks, great dialogue and looking forward to more.
Thank you!! I really wanted to hear more about what Evan thinks of mysticism, and its connection to Daoism. I know this is not an interview but a dialogos but if you could steer the direction of the conversation towards these topics that would be (even more) wonderful. His notion of the self as a construction is also really interesting, but how to interpret it in the context of the processual ontology he advocates for is still unclear to me. I am also curious how your Neo-Platonism and his interdependent monism talk to each other; or what does he think about the levels of reality you are talking about so often. So many questions!! Sorry, this might have been long-winded...I just threw those thoughts in 🤣
Al-Ghazali pointed out "the blind spot" at the end of his book The Book of Knowledge...
He categorised intellect into four categories, the fist being the instinctive intellect which appears as if the knowledge already existed, and it just appeared...
He says the instict of the mind to figure out things immediately is like a mirror reflecting light ... The more polished the mirror is the better the reflection...
I'm glad that you are doing so wonderful job! in my opinion Evan hits the point about mysticim.
I'm presently reading The Blind Spot on your recommendation, John. I look forward to sitting down to watch this dialogue soon.
Thanks Evan and John!
Thanks Lee.
Nice owl of Minerva in the bookcase up above.
Hi John, do you know when your book "Awakening from the Meaning Crisis" will come out? The website says early 2024 but I was wondering if you had any more precise release date. I'm VERY eager to read it! :)
Yes final copy has been sent in so September of this year!
@@johnvervaeke Awesome, thanks!
@@johnvervaeke Great news, I'm also very excited to read that book! The paradigm shift is on the horizon! 😂👏
Looking forward to reading it!
The blind spot analogy is like the unconsciousness analogy:
"The problem with the unconscious is that it's unconscious."
It would be AMAZING to hear an episode with you and Dr. William Lane Craig. It would be a near psychedelic conversation! One a cognitive powerhouse in dialogue another a philosophical powerhouse in debate. Entering into dialogos from both ends of a spectrum.
Thankyou.
Great! These days I'm reading one of his important books "The Embodied Mind."
I'm the village Atheist, lol. Vervaeke's one of the best cog scientists in the biz, he's just a little extra New Age-y all the time.
Pop John and Evan thank you for attending unto one another and unto our OWN! Performing in front without being forced. Some will say, his own must be drunk! Hehe! Keep watch! Can't handle this NEW WINE! John and Evan will say, don't bring thy old skin to hold the NEW WINE! Why? Will burst in front of thee! Given New and came with Given ABLE! Beyond measures. Love you Pop John! Gratitude and Honor unto thee my beloved Evan! Nothing is wasted but increase! Carry thy comfort with Thee! As HE carries HIS COMFORT WITH HIMSELF.
~ Hi. Great! thanks.
This seems to dovetail with McGilchrists core argument in The Matter with Things that the left hemisphere of the brain is abstracting a map that we've taken as the essence of reality rather than the more nuanced lived experience of the right brain....and that we've built our culture more on this phenomenon rather than living in the world...the embodied life so to speak.
Gratitude and Honor Heirs Hosts shared "i" AM commanded to provide space, from here grows, and came with time given from the True Owner.
I can attempt to express the shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms using the frameworks of logic, mathematics, and physics. This transition represents a profound paradigm shift in our understanding of reality and the nature of scientific inquiry.
Logic:
In classical logic, we have been operating within the realm of bivalence, where propositions are either true or false, and the principle of non-contradiction holds. However, quantum mechanics has challenged this notion with phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, which defy our classical intuitions. The both/and logic, with its multivalued and paraconsistent structure, provides a framework to model these quantum paradoxes.
Let's consider the famous double-slit experiment, where an entity (e.g., an electron) exhibits both wave-like and particle-like behavior depending on the experimental setup. In classical logic, we would have to assign mutually exclusive truth values to the propositions "e is a wave" and "e is a particle." However, the both/and logic allows us to assign graded truth values to these propositions:
Truth("e is a wave") = 0.6
Truth("e is a particle") = 0.7
Coherence("e is a wave", "e is a particle") = 0.8
The coherence value reflects the compatibility of these seemingly contradictory properties within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated quantum phenomenon:
"e is a wave" ⊕ "e is a particle" = quantum_behavior(e)
Mathematics:
Classical mathematics has been heavily influenced by the notion of objectivity and the search for universal, context-independent truths. However, quantum mechanics has revealed the inherent contextuality and observer-dependence of certain phenomena. The monadological framework, with its emphasis on the irreducible perspectives of monads (fundamental psychophysical entities), provides a basis for reconceptualizing mathematics.
In classical set theory, an element either belongs to a set or not, adhering to the principle of bivalence. However, in the quantum realm, we encounter situations where an entity can exhibit graded membership in multiple sets simultaneously. The both/and logic allows us to represent this using multivalued set membership:
Membership(e, set_A) = 0.7
Membership(e, set_B) = 0.6
Coherence(Membership(e, set_A), Membership(e, set_B)) = 0.5
This captures the idea that an entity can simultaneously belong to different sets to varying degrees, with a coherence value representing the compatibility of these memberships.
Physics:
Classical physics has been dominated by third-person, objective descriptions of reality, often ignoring the role of the observer. However, quantum mechanics has brought the observer's perspective and the act of measurement to the forefront, challenging our classical notions of objectivity.
In classical mechanics, we can describe the state of a system using well-defined variables and deterministic equations of motion. However, in quantum mechanics, the state of a system is described by a wave function, which represents a superposition of multiple potential states. The both/and logic allows us to represent this superposition using graded truth values:
Truth("system is in state A") = 0.4
Truth("system is in state B") = 0.6
Coherence("system is in state A", "system is in state B") = 0.8
The coherence value captures the idea that the system can simultaneously exhibit properties of multiple states, with a non-zero coherence reflecting the compatibility of these states within the quantum realm.
Furthermore, the act of measurement in quantum mechanics is not merely a passive observation but an active intervention that disturbs the system and collapses the wave function. This challenges the classical notion of an objective, detached observer. The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the integration of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework to model this observer-system entanglement.
Let O represent an observer, and S represent a quantum system:
Truth("O observes S in state A") = 0.7
Truth("S is in state A") = 0.5
Coherence("O observes S in state A", "S is in state A") = 0.9
The high coherence value reflects the inseparability of the observer's perspective and the system's state within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated observer-system reality:
"O observes S in state A" ⊕ "S is in state A" = quantum_measurement_event
This shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms challenges our traditional notions of objectivity, detachment, and context-independence. The both/and logic and the monadological framework provide symbolic and conceptual tools to navigate this transition, allowing us to model and reason about the inherent contextuality, observer-dependence, and paradoxical nature of quantum phenomena.
By embracing these new formalisms, we can develop a more holistic and integrated understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers and the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects. This paradigm shift has profound implications not only for our scientific worldview but also for our philosophical and metaphysical understanding of the nature of reality, knowledge, and the role of the observer in the pursuit of understanding.
Let's continue exploring how the transition from classical to quantum formalisms enabled by the both/and logic and monadological framework opens up new frontiers across various domains:
Philosophy of Science and Epistemology
The shift to quantum, first-person formalisms has profound implications for our understanding of scientific inquiry, knowledge, and epistemology. Classical epistemology has been heavily influenced by the ideal of an objective, detached observer acquiring knowledge about an independent, external reality. However, the quantum realm challenges this view by highlighting the fundamental inseparability of the observer and the observed system.
The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the coherence and synthesis of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework for reconceptualizing the nature of scientific knowledge. Rather than viewing knowledge as a mere representation or mapping of an external reality, we can understand it as a co-constituted process involving the irreducible perspectives of observers and the systems under study.
Let O represent an observer, S represent a system, and K represent scientific knowledge:
Truth(K is objective) = 0.6
Truth(K involves subjective aspects) = 0.7
Coherence(K is objective, K involves subjective aspects) = 0.8
The high coherence value reflects the idea that scientific knowledge is neither purely objective nor purely subjective, but rather a synthesis of both aspects. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent this integrated understanding:
"K is objective" ⊕ "K involves subjective aspects" = scientific_knowledge(O, S)
This reconceptualization challenges the classical notion of knowledge as a detached representation of an external reality and acknowledges the active role of observers in shaping and co-constituting scientific knowledge.
Furthermore, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide tools for modeling the contextuality and observer-dependence inherent in quantum phenomena. This has implications for our understanding of scientific objectivity and the universality of scientific laws and theories.
Let T represent a scientific theory, and C represent a particular context or experimental setup:
Truth(T holds universally) = 0.7
Truth(T depends on context C) = 0.6
Coherence(T holds universally, T depends on context C) = 0.5
The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the desire for universal scientific laws and the recognition that scientific theories may be context-dependent and observer-relative within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding:
"T holds universally" ⊕ "T depends on context C" = contextual_scientific_theory(T, C)
This shift challenges the classical ideal of universal, context-independent scientific laws and theories and acknowledges the potential for observer-dependence and contextuality within the quantum realm.
Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness
The transition to quantum, first-person formalisms also has profound implications for our understanding of consciousness and the mind-body problem. Classical approaches have often treated the mind and consciousness as separate from the physical world, leading to various forms of dualism or reductionism. However, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide a basis for reconceptualizing the relationship between mind and matter.
Let M represent the mental or subjective aspect, and P represent the physical or objective aspect:
Truth(M is distinct from P) = 0.5
Truth(M is integrated with P) = 0.6
Coherence(M is distinct from P, M is integrated with P) = 0.7
The high coherence value reflects the idea that the mental and physical aspects are neither completely distinct nor fully reducible to each other, but rather exist in a state of coherent integration. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent this integrated understanding:
"M is distinct from P" ⊕ "M is integrated with P" = mind-matter_relationship
This view challenges both classical dualism and reductionism and acknowledges the irreducible co-constitution of subjective and objective aspects within a unified reality.
Furthermore, the monadological framework, with its emphasis on fundamental psychophysical monads, provides a basis for reconceptualizing consciousness as an irreducible aspect of reality, rather than an emergent property or epiphenomenon. This challenges the classical view of consciousness as a mere by-product of physical processes and acknowledges its fundamental role in shaping and co-constituting reality.
Let C represent consciousness, and R represent physical reality:
Truth(C is an epiphenomenon of R) = 0.4
Truth(C co-constitutes R) = 0.7
Coherence(C is an epiphenomenon of R, C co-constitutes R) = 0.6
The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the classical view of consciousness as an epiphenomenon and the quantum view of consciousness as an active co-constituent of reality. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding:
"C is an epiphenomenon of R" ⊕ "C co-constitutes R" = consciousness-reality_relationship
This shift challenges the classical reductionist view of consciousness and acknowledges its fundamental role in shaping and co-constituting reality, aligning with the principles of the monadological framework.
Foundations of Mathematics and Logic
The transition to quantum, first-person formalisms also has implications for our understanding of the foundations of mathematics and logic themselves. Classical mathematics and logic have been heavily influenced by the ideals of objectivity, universality, and context-independence. However, the both/and logic and monadological framework challenge these notions and provide a basis for reconceptualizing the nature of mathematical and logical truth.
Let T represent a mathematical or logical truth, and O represent an observer or context:
Truth(T is universal) = 0.7
Truth(T depends on observer O) = 0.6
Coherence(T is universal, T depends on observer O) = 0.5
The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the classical view of mathematical and logical truths as universal and context-independent, and the quantum view of truth as observer-dependent and context-sensitive. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding:
"T is universal" ⊕ "T depends on observer O" = contextual_mathematical_truth(T, O)
This view challenges the classical notion of timeless, objective mathematical and logical truths and acknowledges the potential for observer-dependence and contextuality within these domains, aligning with the principles of the monadological framework.
Furthermore, the both/and logic itself provides a basis for reconceptualizing the foundations of logic by embracing multivalence, paraconsistency, and the coherence of seemingly contradictory propositions. This challenges the classical principles of bivalence and non-contradiction and opens up new possibilities for representing and reasoning about the paradoxical and contextual nature of truth within the quantum realm.
These are just a few examples of how the transition from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms enabled by the both/and logic and monadological framework has profound implications across various domains. By embracing these new formalisms and conceptual frameworks, we can develop a more holistic, integrated, and contextualized understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers, the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects, and the potential for contextuality and observer-dependence within the quantum realm.
I am intrigued by this concept of time (24:00) it brings to mind family dynamics and the little information we have to open up the elder wisdom when it comes to seeing what is happening underneath the structure. I find timing and transitions is one of those learned and lived experiences that can monitor the peak adjustments in families as members age, change living situations, adjust to new relationship dynamics and transmit learning through the cultural pedagogy. So, when people say, "family is family that's how it is". I dont believe them 🤭. There is more happening and the way to understand it is not simply found in the metaphoric parables of our elders so that one day when we come of age (if ever) we will discover such things on our own. I think that was true, but i also think those circles became inaccessible as capitalism became the main driver for progress and survival. Now we would like to know what we missed during that time apart.
The older generational hylics (New Atheist rationalists) were never concerned with the "meaning crisis", So why all of a sudden these newer versions suddenly have such a sense of a "meaning crisis" that penetrates them so intensely?
15mins in, and funny as it’s stating the Cosmic trigger Raw, “The Map is not the territory “
But by expanding how we view experience seems to “shrink” the blind spot. This is something like having eyes on all sides of our heads.
❤
This is fascinating and pertinent to today’s discussions on the nature of reality. The materialists don’t seem to be able to move past the 19th century Darwinian view of life as being more than molecules and cells. The Buddha, leaving consciousness aside, divided the mind into the intellect and the sense mind presenting them as polarities. His advice was to direct the sense mind from the intellect, not to operate from the sense mind alone. Science today deals with matter alone, what is elemental. Materialists, with consciousness not explainable, want to insist that the material is the totality of reality, which is nonsense. The forces and magnetism, and how many kinds of electricity there are, is not known yet and whether the mind is material, emerging with quantum events. Two things is all there is, which we see as two: Consciousness and God, it is inevitable that they be one and the same, all else is illusion, a dreamscape.
Would you like to you explain a bit what you mean by “direct the sense mind from the intellect”?
@@PetrosSyrak It could be expressed simply as think before you speak or ‘look before you leap.’ Or don’t be a habit slave, repeating the same old habits over and over again whether you want to or not, or whether they make sense, or are rational or not.
@@ALavin-en1kr Thanks for the reply.
Admittedly, my understanding of Buddha’s teaching is very limited (it mostly comes from what I’ve heard in lectures at vipassana retreats), but placing the intellect as the ultimate director seems a bit counter-intuitive to me. Besides, it seems to me we are just as prone to be slaves to habitual thinking as to sensual pleasures.
Could you point to some specific passage in the Buddhist tradition where I can read about this point?
Buddha's rationalism or "philosophy" derives from a chief method of Vedic relgious culture- human argument; the same legacy led the way to madyamika, the path of emptiness, the 'middle way'. yet we see the Vedic Buddha implictly addresses the body of senses when speaking to specific human experiences - esp our passions or quiet lucidity within our emotion-body-- and equalably when he speaks to ritual in terms of right speech, genorosity, monastic forms, etc specifically involving *human situations*. such conditions may now seem remote, alien, when they were familar to all classes of Vedic culture- where they were assumed by Buddha's interlocuters. much later buddhist monasticism challenged and liberated female subjugation- and all class forms. that Nalanda culture did not resist when monotheism arrived to eliminate Buddha's challenge to authority... more below
@@PetrosSyrak NB below
The reality is some type of abstraction is already present in any claim of a "lived experience". This isn't to say that science has exhausted what we can know of the world, but it does mean that certain kinds of abstractions that first began to captivate us during the early 1600's have been developed and investigated to the point of exhaustion.
Share...thy given ABLE! As ye see. Many are not able. Even unto many calls themselves wise in front! Who am I? Why? I so love my OWN! Shared Feet resting upon...
In grad school I took a course in the mathematics of string theory...mathematically it's beautiful and elegant...physically, scientifically and philosophically...not so much
Time where ye belong? Under Thy FEET LORD!
🌚☄️❤️💫
Remember MOTHERS, Women, once an infant daughters from HIS SIDE. Our Beautiful shared "i" AM will say, the ALPHA! Our Beautiful will say, showed HIMSELF UNTO US 1ST! Then unto all HIS HEIRS HOSTS shared "i" AM. Keepers of HIS Offsprings preserve, the meeks, and HIS FOOTSTOOL!
For many Feet resting upon easily can be blown away in front!
Time what is 80-100 years unto WHO?
Remember the SON can do as my Father do? The Comforter will say. From here! These 3 can't separate! The Father, Son, and the Comforter! Shared "i" AM come forth! MAN
“The paradox is now fully established that the utmost abstractions are the true weapons with which to control our thought of concrete fact.”
- Alfred North Whitehead
How nor why? Even how and why came from Who? Even Who can't exist in front! Who will say need thy shared "i" AM! Now can exist in front! Nevertheless ye prefer "Who am I"? For such time is given! Till time no longer!
I don’t understand and I want to. So Newton’s God is not allowed in cognitive science because one cannot get outside oneself but Whitehead’s yes? How is not Whitehead’s God get oneself out of oneself too? Are we not absolutizing as well?
Remember my Offsprings preserve. Have no knowledge concerning Wars of men, massacres, murdering, nor to abort! Remember ye all once my New minds! Have grown in front!
The blind spot is within sight but you must deep dive nietches abyss
Yes, if only knew? For time to come forth! Time What is thy reasons? Nor who said come forth? Time will say, from thy "AM" Holy BLOOD STAINS purchased! Purchased WHO Time? For the little Child born "i" AM. And unto all His shared "i" AM.
Share thy FEET unto many don't even know? Why given Feet?
Galileo and world war 1.
Apropos of nothing, if we reach the edge of the universe and it looks like what it feels like to rub your tongue along the top of your mouth, are you disappointed?
I'd be relieved that such quotidian familiarity is present in such a distant realm of the cosmos.
Imagine instead that it looked like what it feels like to pull your heart out through your nostrils, while rotating at the speed of light, as billions of razor-sharp squared circles fly into your veins and tear you apart from the inside.
I'd say that would be a tad more disappointing for me. Mostly because it would indicate that the human mind is less well-adapted to contending with the extremeties of existence.
If you imagine that the human mind is a microcosm of the universe, then perhaps a tongue-rubbing-like precipice would suggest that we would be relatively well-equipped to explore ourselves deeply and actually gain useful information that could help us properly orient ourselves in the world.
@@Simargo I like the idea that we do not need to go anywhere to explore things like that, and if you did go somewhere to explore something like that then it would always be somewhere else.
great man theory but applied to science. scientific advancement was not the product of the method, but of great scientists. it was never objective.
Wolfgang Smith talks about the same topics