I liked the somewhat higher tension in this dialogue! So good. When Matt came in near the end with resonances and cycles, macro microcosm... Nice! I appreciate listening to these so much
Driving at full speed and even building some of the roadway along the edges yourselves brings its own delightful detours and surprise vistas. But grounded so well in intellectual history as it is, it keeps this passenger buckling in for more. Fecund great stuff gentlemen.
1:05:30 One mentioned outward the other inward expansion. In Chinese cosmology, this is the basic tendency of the cosmos. It expands outwards and then inwards infinitely. There is no beginning or end or any ultimate purpose or destination. It’s a monistic view whereby Qi contracts to form matter and expands to become immaterial. This happens on all scales from micro to macro and vice versa. But there is still a conception of time. Hence it isn’t circular but spiralling.
When I hear 'environment' right away there is a move which places anything which is thought about already in a static dualism. So Matt's concresence and cycle and rhythm is where the action will be going forward...
We make things to prototypes but the human does not have its own prototype? What an awful mistake of nature, how could it have turned out as well as it did for humans, evolving to a non-existing prototype. Amazing!
Did we evolve to sit in front of computers and wonder why we evolved? What was the feedback that caused selective pressure to do so? Evolution is bunk.
Kinda unrelated, but I wonder if you've looked into Buddhism and the overlap with Whiteheadian thought. Especially the more esoteric sects of Mahayana like Huayan, in which Indra's Net is a central concept: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huayan#Doctrine I feel like this is a really fruitful area of study. Curious what you make of it.
down home apple tree roots pulse twice a year with new feeder roots that are one cell wall thick to enable the embrace, that slough off over the winter to leave 10% as structural roots.
If I did not think, I could still perhaps be. God said "I am that I am." Since this is not true for humans, I certainly don't take "I think therefor I am." seriously. It doesn't appear like the proposition is even opposed to sollipsism.
About halfway through and just wanted to show some appreciation for the philosophical sparring, as it were. Great talk!
I liked the somewhat higher tension in this dialogue! So good. When Matt came in near the end with resonances and cycles, macro microcosm... Nice! I appreciate listening to these so much
Driving at full speed and even building some of the roadway along the edges yourselves brings its own delightful detours and surprise vistas. But grounded so well in intellectual history as it is, it keeps this passenger buckling in for more. Fecund great stuff gentlemen.
Loving these dialogues. Reminds me a bit of the Sheldrake - McKenna - Abhrams trialogues.
McKenna was influenced by whiteheads idealism.
1:05:30
One mentioned outward the other inward expansion.
In Chinese cosmology, this is the basic tendency of the cosmos.
It expands outwards and then inwards infinitely.
There is no beginning or end or any ultimate purpose or destination.
It’s a monistic view whereby Qi contracts to form matter and expands to become immaterial.
This happens on all scales from micro to macro and vice versa.
But there is still a conception of time. Hence it isn’t circular but spiralling.
When I hear 'environment' right away there is a move which places anything which is thought about already in a static dualism. So Matt's concresence and cycle and rhythm is where the action will be going forward...
I would not want to be a highly evolved person and find myself living in a dark age. That would be a version of hell.
A highly evolved person (consciously) living in this material age would be no joke either. 😊
We make things to prototypes but the human does not have its own prototype? What an awful mistake of nature, how could it have turned out as well as it did for humans, evolving to a non-existing prototype. Amazing!
Did we evolve to sit in front of computers and wonder why we evolved? What was the feedback that caused selective pressure to do so? Evolution is bunk.
I. Think that rocks. Having an 800 millions year head start over organic life stretches the category
nice at 1hr 42 where the niche and entering organism embrace in mutual recognition.
Kinda unrelated, but I wonder if you've looked into Buddhism and the overlap with Whiteheadian thought. Especially the more esoteric sects of Mahayana like Huayan, in which Indra's Net is a central concept: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huayan#Doctrine
I feel like this is a really fruitful area of study. Curious what you make of it.
dr. segall
any idea what happened to our old friend mathfails?
is he ok?
wish I knew!
down home apple tree roots pulse twice a year with new feeder roots that are one cell wall thick to enable the embrace, that slough off over the winter to leave 10% as structural roots.
A tautology doesn't explain anything. These atoms in my liver survive because I survive. Do the atoms want me to live in any way?
Apperently so. There is no atom in the universe that could have stopped you from writing that comment.
This is sure a lot of hand waving. I think therefore I think.
If I did not think, I could still perhaps be.
God said "I am that I am." Since this is not true for humans, I certainly don't take "I think therefor I am." seriously. It doesn't appear like the proposition is even opposed to sollipsism.
Dear Dr Segall,
Do you have any discussions or blog posts with Jonathan Pageau?
If not, is this someone you are perhaps interested in talking to?
I haven't spoken with Pageau, no. I'd be open to doing so for sure.