An amazing interview indeed. Helped in clarifying some of the concepts in Critical Realism. I agree with the conclusion based on the elaborate explanation by Prof. Bhaskar of understanding reality. The explanation of dual and no-dual planes of social beings and how he then provides a possibility of the Critical Realism working together with IT which he says could provide 'epistemic taxonomy' to get some completeness of answers that could be implemented for humans to gain consciousness in order to get a clear concept alternative informed by intellectuals. That will result in human action producing conscious transformation. My understanding is that as Humans we must be on the quest for tolerance of each other and our chosen perspectives, beliefs, and spiritual alignments. We must have an "ONTOLOGY capable of encompassing change"(Bhaskar). I had no idea integral theory exists I plan to read more on it. Thank you so much for sharing this interview. Thank you once again.
Material things and objects co-exist with subjectivity, awareness, interpretive filters. It is our interpretation of them that exist as potentials in consciousness, not the objects themselves. I don't think that we should reify subjectivity over objectivity or vice versa. There is an important philosophical statement called "Critical Realism" (by Roy Bhaskar) on the need to recognize objects as their own type of reality against the subjective-dominant statements and subjectivism-only that prevailed in many philosophical movements. Thus, when we speak about "consciousness" we are representing the subjectivism that gained importance since Kant, the German Idealists and others. Subjectivism reawakened with postmodern philosophies telling us of the importance of interpretation, cultural and personal, even to the point of being so relativistic that facts and objects and scientific evidence is just considered another interpretation relative to personal and cultural perspectives. But Bhaskar corrected this exaggeration. It is subjectivity and objectivity together and objects also exist in and of themselves regardless of interpretation. I say that, in the end, reality is not just about "consciousness" but about "consciousness and being," giving rise to subjectivity and objects.
Absolutely right! Unfortunatelly, we know very little of Roy Bhaskar in this part of the world, please do share more of Roy's work with us. Greetings from IPCEM, Peru.
I think to say there is a reality separate from perspective is fine, but you have to define it as conceptual and inferential, so it's never actualized reality. I think awareness/consciousness has that property of actually actualizing reality.
You lost me at social justice. As tainted as the term is, it was really the massive, unholy leap from ontology to social justice n the 3 or 4 massive large loose blanket terms that did it
Roy Bhaskar's thought certainly needs more recognition. He was a major thinker. He died three days ago.
An amazing interview indeed. Helped in clarifying some of the concepts in Critical Realism. I agree with the conclusion based on the elaborate explanation by Prof. Bhaskar of understanding reality. The explanation of dual and no-dual planes of social beings and how he then provides a possibility of the Critical Realism working together with IT which he says could provide 'epistemic taxonomy' to get some completeness of answers that could be implemented for humans to gain consciousness in order to get a clear concept alternative informed by intellectuals. That will result in human action producing conscious transformation. My understanding is that as Humans we must be on the quest for tolerance of each other and our chosen perspectives, beliefs, and spiritual alignments. We must have an "ONTOLOGY capable of encompassing change"(Bhaskar). I had no idea integral theory exists I plan to read more on it. Thank you so much for sharing this interview. Thank you once again.
Wow you were so lucky to interview this magnificent man. He reminds me so much of Khyentse Yangsi Rinpoche 💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜
Material things and objects co-exist with subjectivity, awareness, interpretive filters. It is our interpretation of them that exist as potentials in consciousness, not the objects themselves. I don't think that we should reify subjectivity over objectivity or vice versa. There is an important philosophical statement called "Critical Realism" (by Roy Bhaskar) on the need to recognize objects as their own type of reality against the subjective-dominant statements and subjectivism-only that prevailed in many philosophical movements. Thus, when we speak about "consciousness" we are representing the subjectivism that gained importance since Kant, the German Idealists and others. Subjectivism reawakened with postmodern philosophies telling us of the importance of interpretation, cultural and personal, even to the point of being so relativistic that facts and objects and scientific evidence is just considered another interpretation relative to personal and cultural perspectives. But Bhaskar corrected this exaggeration. It is subjectivity and objectivity together and objects also exist in and of themselves regardless of interpretation. I say that, in the end, reality is not just about "consciousness" but about "consciousness and being," giving rise to subjectivity and objects.
Absolutely right! Unfortunatelly, we know very little of Roy Bhaskar in this part of the world, please do share more of Roy's work with us. Greetings from IPCEM, Peru.
hey there, really enjoyed the video - would love to get these as audio only, are you on audea?
I think to say there is a reality separate from perspective is fine, but you have to define it as conceptual and inferential, so it's never actualized reality. I think awareness/consciousness has that property of actually actualizing reality.
The more bhaskar the better
Just excellent! Greetings from Peru.
greetings from university of copenhagen. (high ranking university)
U make me so much confuse man 😢
T
Mimsy!!
You lost me at social justice. As tainted as the term is, it was really the massive, unholy leap from ontology to social justice n the 3 or 4 massive large loose blanket terms that did it
Bhaskar is the loser of phil! Only sociologists read him... and they're failing miserably!