This is fantastic and earned you a new subscriber. There are so many places in this discusssion where I had to stop and write down what was said, then back it up and replay it. I base a great video on whether or not I want to rewatch it immediately, this is one I will listen to several times. Thanks. BTW, please enable Closed Captions for those of us who need the written word to fully take ideas in.
Can confirm, it was a challenge to process all of it, but it was very, very worthwhile. ❤ Karen is a certified OG of This Little Corner 💪 Tremendous researcher, synthesizer of wisdom & connection-maker. 🏆 She did the work & it shows, big time; congrats & thank you 🌺❤️
I followed (or more accurately, was dragged through) the Peterson-Pageau pipeline into the Orthodox Church. I read Wolfgangs book a few months ago and loved it. Glad to see this crossover. Thank you.
Interesting. I’m just starting the video but if I recall correctly, Karen asked Wolfgang about seeing the icon as a mountain in a previous conversation but Wolfgang said he would not recommend doing so. But again, I am not certain about my memory on the conversation.
Great catch! Being a cosmic image, and the cosmos being potential, it also makes sense. It also looks like the alchemical sun symbol which represent attention across time, life eternal. They both show the same basic concept. And it's the same with the cross, which is the sacrifice of attention for memory, power yielding to authority, time yielding to space, and accepting space within, while space in time accepts time without.
So much in common with Karl Fristons’ work in this conversation. A thing cannot be a ‘thing’ without a border. The inside and outside of markov blankets. Such an inspirational gathering. Great, just great Karen. Thank you all.
A conversation full of bangers! What a blessing it is to be able to take in the thoughts of great thinkers and minds such as these. Thank you so much Karen for bringing them all together and facilitating this dialogue. Edit: Thank you everyone for coming together and having such a fun conversation. Normally I prefer one-on-one conversations to listen to, but in cases like this I thought everyone played a useful role in guiding everything along perfectly. It was great having someone who could tie things back in to previous subjects, it made the talk feel very contiguous. Wow! I love the lines: "measurement cannot exist without identity," "constraints and borders are necessary to even begin [an artistic endeavor]" and "[having constraints and boundaries] establishes your work." There's an absolutely insane amount of richness to this conversation. "The measurer cannot be measured." That's awesome. Love this whole bringing together of ideas that have so much resonance with each other. The tripartite universe and the trinity stuff go together like the macro and the microcosms. Fractally reflective. Never even thought that iconography, like two-dimensional flat planes, could be connected to the ideas of time and lacking distance, and that just adding the simple illusion of greater space into that field would have so many ramifications. This video was a trip.
Wolfgang and John Vervaeke both seem to have great affection for Jonathan, don’t blame them, I do to. I hope he does well ☦️🙏🏻 thanks for this interesting talk!
Mercy as recalibration in time to make movement possible, visioning action, living icons, creators, resolution of the sacrifice problem as that which is cut off becomes the glory.
“Mercy as recalibration in time to make movement possible” … The Lord, in His mercy, puts obstacles in our way when we’re on the wrong path. The obstacles are a gift to help us grow. Mercy plus recalibration in time makes upward movement possible. He is always knitting together a better story for us, and it seems like our contribution is the stumbling and His is the recalibration of mercy.
Mind-blowing, invigorating-inspiring! This conversation left me with a sense of deep contentment, a sense of fullness. Deserves another listening with a note-book.....! Thank you all!
Bravo!! Thank you Karen. D.C. Schindler goes to great lengths in showing how Plato uses Socrates to exhibit the inevitability of the good to manifest itself within the particular. Or perhaps, the redeeming nature of the good manifested within the corporal. It exist within each level of that icon of ontology *_and_* without. It is not found on Plato's divided line but is implicit within it. It is past the point of rationality, that which moves the philosopher _back_ into the cave. This is why at first, the philosopher's decent into the cave seems arbitrary. But it isn't, it's just beyond the limits of rationality. Plato demonstrates this ineffability through the character of Socrates and his dramatic positioning in the dialog. Thank you for putting this talk together.
Great conversation. Thank you. I do think Taoism is an Eastern exception to escaping/destroying manifestation. Certain forms of Zen also clearly show a return after seeing through, with a making more real. Corbin’s “Ibrahimica Harmonica” also addresses these issues, along with comparative religion, without being perennial, and respecting the traditions and church. Corbin remained Lutheran, and David Neijwars is an Orthodox Christian follower of his. That said, this conversation, and the images brings out the unique wealth of connection to the infinite. Thanks again.
Particularity in the Trinity. To Dr Smith’s point, Ellis Potter’s lecture titled Comparative Worldviews is a brilliant analysis of the importance of the Trinity to understand the structure of reality and love.
53:58 - C.S. Lewis - the blades of grass in paradise being too sharp for us. They're actually too real for us. You see in the church fathers they say in the eschaton St Paul will be more St Paul and St Peter will be more St Peter as they enter into more and more of their theosis, and becoming god more and more, they do also become more of themselves. 55:30 - Christianity is a better at explaining nonduality than Vedanta - we do not deny the infinite transcendence of God, but in the transcendence all of reality can participate. Rather than wanting to extinguish manifestation and see it as some kind of illusion or an illusion or mist, that will be scattered once things return to God, 56:22 - we literally could say: "Christ saves the world". 57:35 - love is the coexistence of unity and multiplicity, that's what love is, because if you love something, you don't want it to vanish, you don't want it to disappear. You want it to exist as different from you and then be bound to it at the same time. It's one of the most beautiful ways to understand how all of creation can coexist with God and within God. 58:16 the connection to the Divine is what fills it with reality solidifying the world in a good way. 1:03:35 - If we understand the story of Christ we will see that one of the things Christ is doing pretty much all the time in His story, He is constantly transforming death into glory, that's the best way to understand it. The crown of thorns is best version of that because the crown of thorns is a consequence of the fall, it is multiplicity itself, it's like hostile multiplicity. You can say all these spiky things that pierce us. Then Christ is able to transform that into a crown and then you realize that's what Christ is actually doing all the time which is why He goes to the margin all the time, why He engages with the Samaritan women for example. Here a woman whose had several husbands to the extent that she now living in an illegitimate relationship with a man, so she's a whore for all intents and purposes. And Christ is saying I will marry you, I will be your seventh husband and I will give you water that will flow into eternity. So He takes her low state and brings it up and He does that constantly, whether it's the woman with an issue of blood, whether it's resurrection itself. That's what resurrection is the transformation of death into glory. So the whole story of Christ, not just as an abstract image of the incarnation, but in the story, we see how Christ is constantly showing us how the world, even death itself can be full and transformed into light. 1:05:44 - without an identity you can't measure anything. You don't measure things without identity. Measurement presupposes identity. Presupposes telos and then presupposes a bound, something that binds it. And those are the two sacrifices. They are the sacrifices of Yom Kippur. There's a sacrifice up towards identity, towards that that's the source of identity, and there's a scapegoat sacrifice of cutting off that which doesn't belong within the identity. So without those two sacrifices, without giving up all your best up towards the identity and without cutting off all that which doesn't belong - you can't measure, there's no possibility of measuring. So measuring has to be bound up in the notion of sacrifice. 1:08:34 - it's really the Yom Kippur sacrifice. You could say there's two goats. One pure goat which is offered up to God and then becomes the meal that we eat, so give up and then we get a blessing, but we also get cohesion because we eat the meal together, we eat the goat. We share the same body because we sacrifice up. But there's also an aspect of where we put our sins on the goat and chase it out of the city. So that is the cutting off that which doesn't belong in the entity. 1:11:18 - Identities are given, identities are a gift from heaven. They come down from above. You cannot get to identities from below. They come down from heaven and bind phenomena together into unities.
A hologram is n dimensions of information in n minus one dimensions. In a hologram, the whole of the information is spread across the entire thing but the relationships at each point are slightly different. Information is stored in the relationships. Information is a difference that can make a difference.
Another place I've seen Wolfgang's icon is in the graphical depiction of the Tzimtzum, the self-contraction of God in Lurianic Kabbalah. However, in those diagrams, the correspondence of the icon is inverted relative to Wolfgang's icon. In the Tzimtzum diagram, the center corresponds to the material world, the periphery (and everything beyond the periphery) corresponds to The Uncontainable/Ain Soph (by way of it being outside the circle), and the line connecting the two corresponds to the Sephirotic Tree of Life. I'm not sure what the implications of this mapping is. I guess one main difference is that Wolfgang doesn't put anything corresponding to God into his icon, whereas that which is outside (and arguably beneath, e.g. the paper on which the icon is drawn) in the Tzimtzum icon corresponds to something akin to God. This might account for the relative inversion of the two icons. --- I don't agree with Wolfgang's idea that God is completely other from the rest of being, what he calls creation. Any interaction, including creation, requires ontological overlap. If this idea is surrendered, then no valid claims can be made of anything. Nothing can be said to be radically other from creation, since in order to validly make that claim, one had to presuppose the notion of strictly partial ontological overlap. Strictly partial ontological overlap is, in short, that any two conceivable notions must be the same in a sense and different in a sense; for every way in which two things are the same there are at least two ways in which they are different, and for every way in which they are different, there are at least two ways in which they are the same. No valid notion which is distinct from the absence of a notion is exempt from this requirement, God included. If God is seen as the anchor of reality at the ever-present center of all being (not necessarily the center of Wolfgang's icon, but the center beyond and beneath that icon) then to say that creation has no link to that center is to cut off all that is not God from God and to let it float away into Chaos. This would render all of Being indistinguishable from non-Being, which is in stark contrast to the unavoidably apparent notion that there is Being. --- Regarding emergence and what it actually is, I agree that in most cases it is effectively used as a synonym for magic. However, through the work of Eric Hoel and Wojciech Zurek, a plausible explanation of what emergence actually is may be available. In short, emergence is the transference of properties which are invariant under scaling and interaction between different scales. This is similar to the idea of objects as persisting through time, though here, it is invariance of properties under interaction, which is a particular type of persistence through time. This type of invariance allows for information to be redundantly copies across multiple elements. All those elements which contain this information constitute the higher-order emergent object. Though I'm not sure if "contain this information" is the right terminology, since it is more of a correspondence whose logic is determined by the invariant which allows for the redundancy of the correspondence in the first place (e.g. the conservation of angular momentum for networks of quantum entanglement). I don't feel like I explained that very well, but hopefully it gets part of the point across. In even shorter, emergence is enabled through redundancy, which allows for a higher-order consensus between disparate elements. There's a video on Quantum Darwinism by PBS Spacetime that outlines this pretty well for those interested: watch?v=vSnq5Hs3_wI There's a comment on that video by Steven Brunwasser (starts "I was having a hard time understanding...") that helped me understand how this related to emergence in general. It's one of the top comments, so it shouldn't be too hard to find. Also, I think that the notion of non-simultaneity might (emphasis on might; I haven't though about this point too hard) be an example of a notion that doesn't scale through all the layers of reality, similar to how some quantum mechanical effects don't scale up into the macroscopic. This is in contrast to things like conservation laws that result from the symmetries/invariants of reality, which do scale through all the layers of reality (by way of them being invariant). That may be why it seems to be in contrast to Wolfgang's notion of there being simultaneity. --- Regarding Wolfram, the mapping I see is of Physical Space to the realm of space and time, Branchial Space, despite the name, to the realm of only time (where each branch of rule application contains its own space as opposed to being located in space), and Rulial Space to the realm of no space and no time (since rules exist outside of time and outside of the results of them being run). Would this place GR at the periphery, QFT at the intermediate realm, and mathematics at the center? --- That which is the presupposition for the existence of something can be seen as a gift to that thing. One can't normally generate or alter things prior to one's existence, so it makes sense to think that the presuppositions must be given by something other than the thing in question. However, self-making things are those things which paradoxically create (or perhaps alter?) their own preconditions. This must be the case for reality as a whole, since there is nothing outside of reality which can "give" reality it's own preconditions (see the part about strictly partial ontological overlap).(emphasis on might; I haven't though about this point too hard)
By the way, that PBS Space Time video might also be relevant to the recent discussion between Glenn and Perry regarding what exactly counts as an observer, or put another way, that which "collapses" the wavefunction.
Cross represent four letters of genetic DNA,four elements ,four seasons ,four layer of one life but also day , sacrifice is nécessaire to combine the horizontal causality with vertical one ..
Karl Barth said that what distinguishes Christian theology is the particularity of the incarnation: Jesus the Christ was born in a particular place at a particular time (bound by space and time). Perhaps as we explore the experience of incarnation as also bound by birth and death, we could meet the Perrenialists by using A.N. Whitehead's understanding that each incarnation contributes to the becoming of God. Is there some way this can be described using Wolfgang's intermediary figure? How does each incarnation "matter"?
52:22 I just read again today a quote in P. T. Forsyth's book The Work of Christ: An able member of the "New Theology" group was conversing with my informant, who said, 'For me all Christianity turns on the unspeakable mercy of God to my soul in the Cross of Christ.' The reply was blankly, ' I do not understand it.' My own comment is, that the major question today, as always, is the significance of the death on the cross of the God-Man. It is this unique message of Christianity which is the most resisted by the world of alternative religions and philosophies, and which is most attacked (rather ignorantly and blindly for the most part) in this 'our little corner of the internet'. We have the questions both concerning Christ, ' Who do you say that I am?' and what do we say about what he accomplished on the cross?
I can't help but think that the tabernacle as constructed in ancient Israel was also tripartite. There was the Outer Court, the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies where the divine was thought to dwell. I believe I am correct in that the tribes of Israel encamped around the tabernacle so that the Holy of Holies was actually at the center of the camp ala the "punto dello stelo." Hopefully that is not just me projecting, but it's an interesting idea.
Mrs Karen, videos like this are a salve to the Reductio ad absurdum as Dr. Wolfgang stated near the end. Thank you much your work is appreciate beyond measure. Been thinking about sacrifice lately, quite like Jonathan's mapping of the 2 goats on the day of Atonement. Space/place clean v unclean : measurement is sacrifice.
Maybe this is shared in WS.s work, but how does the tripartite icon look when representing the micro and macrocosm as a fractal. How do multiple new centers and sweeping circles arise? What puts the perimeter point into its cyclical motion?
Sabine Hossenfelders video from yesterday referred to recent evidence from observations of star clusters which supports MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). The distributions of stars in star clusters has long been known to violate the principals of Einsteinian physics, which necessitated the invention of hypothetical “Dark Matter”. MOND has been proposed as an alternate.
Wolfgangs work might change the world..but his horrible experiences with the schuon cult has definitely effected the clarity of his views. He has just swapped Vedic perennialism with Platonic perrenialism,( the golden thread) he is still a perennialist,.Also Brahma is Atma and Atma is Brahma, they are in an interactive relationship of dynamic tension, its not a dualism in any sense,.Also maya does not mean illusionary as in not real, that's just imposing cartesian and to some extent Neoplatonic spirit/body dualism on the vedic concept. Having said that perhaps he needs alot more space to clarify his views?
Agreed; nuanced understanding of (almost all) Eastern Wisdom traditions seems to be lacking - it’s a very long-lasting issue in This Little Corner. All in good time 👍❤️
Sorry for the late comment. When you measure you sacrifice the quality in order to get a certainty. In order to get certainty you have to reduce to something abstract. That abstraction is a disenchantment. It is reducing to something that is graspable (manipulable) and therefor it is putting constraints on the intelligibility that can be participated in. In some sense we measure when we participate be cause we "NAME" and then we treat as if that name. And we hope that the name we give is reflective of the true nature.
@@TheMeaningCode I'm sorry I think I used the auto correct and picked the wrong correction. I meant intelligibility. When we relate to reality we try to find a connectedness in order to get a grip (agency) or at least an overview with stability for safety. In order to do that we reduce the combinatorial explosion of information into a limited set of patterns that we believe (assume) allow us to do that. The categories that allow us to get information provide intelligibility, information to relate to.
Karen's thought discussed around the 1:19:00 mark about "what if love is the one rule" sounds right on target. 1 John 4:8 "God is love." A really wonderful panel and discussion.
Sicilian Crosses have rays of light, lines (Psalm 19) radiating out from the crossroads of the cross: the center of the cross as convergence of/from all directions, coincidence of opposites? thereby putting all in place.
Was this close to solving Sorites paradox? .....Just a dot.... hoping for a multitude of dots radiating from the centre, forming a protective outer rim of the circle.... Psalm 91:14 (RHE) (90-14) Because he hoped in me I will deliver him: I will protect him because he hath known my name.
I'm curious about the statement Dr. Smith made about Einsteinian physics. It's my understanding that relativity is a framework that accounts for aberrations not explained by Newtonian physics, as well as predicting new effects that have been experimentally verified after the prediction. In other words it's not something that's easily gotten rid of without new theories that fully account for all the things relativity explained. I have no technical knowledge of Dr. Smith's ideas, but I'd like to hear him dig a little deeper into what he does with observations that confirm that both space and time are "bendable" as predicted by Einstein if he requires a universality of simultaneity for his own theory.
50:00 religious pluralism is not the same as Christian perennialism. Uniqueness and exclusivity is not alone. Division and difference goes all the way down. What Pageau just said as about kenosis cannot be immediately forgotten in the dismissal or perennialism. I made a video about this. 😊
This seems to be connected to Dr McGilchrist’s understanding that moral space is curved, which he aligns with the coincidence of opposites. Federico Fellini has a very strange ending to one of his films with characters of his story moving in a circle together and slowly the lights go out. It seems to fit his view of our modern world. How does this connect to mercy and context?
Matthew quotes Christ twice as saying “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice…” which fascinates me and every time I hear sacrifice, my mind goes to mercy. I read Dante continually and the thread running through his great work is mercy, context. There can be no morality without mercy, without context because we carry the divine image. Christ heals because he recognizes the unique context of each person, their story. It is that very recognition that transforms. Mercy is reverberative. It connects people. It resolves superficial difference and it definitely clicks into the narrative world that way. There is something about reverberation and reflection in mercy, maybe creating the self and the other. Maybe that is what we call moral.
As I understand it from sacred geometry, the coincidence of opposites is what happens when you take two opposite ends of a pole and bring them together into a circle. The opposites touch. Mercy and justice are such a pair. Justice can be a mercy and mercy can be an act of justice. It all depends on the context and the perspective.
Alice Rohrwacher, Italian film director,, (Happy as Lazarus, one of her films), maintains that the Italian people of the country lived in circular time well into the 20th century. I spend quite a bit of time in Italy and I can still feel the circularity in the society and culture. I think it is strongly connected to attention,, obviously. The corporeal reality is strong and palpable and yet when attention is directed, there is this intense moving into the unity of that moment, like the left hemisphere redeemed as emissary to the right. It can be as simple as asking direction and then this undivided attention is given. It feels close to holy. Not sure about justice and mercy as opposites. Maybe justice as the grid for vision and mercy as the great unique creative act.
Can anyone describe more fully the intermediary space, place of soul and psyche? Does anyone understand Jonathan’s “coil” at the corporeal? I can see the axis at the centre, something like Dante’s wheels… Dante uses the circle as grounding form in his entire work. Once he is at the centre of the circles of hell, he meets Lucifer and then strangely, it is as if a spell is broken and he starts the ascent up the mountain of Purgatorio. Even Paradiso is circular, yet to Dr Smith’s point, it is 2 dimensional and even though Dante rises through the heavenly spheres, he clearly states that it is spaceless in terms of any distance.
I’ll see what I can find. In one of his books, Wolfgang points to the view that the ancient geometers expressed of the compass measuring out a circle. From that, the picture I get is that the center marks the spot that the Hand that holds the compass touches the cosmos and starts everything, and the circle creates the limit. Maybe something to do with finiteness and transcendence and the need for a space between?
01:12:00 Hey, I'm working on self-driving cars! 😅 Work regard to the autonomy, higher ups at Ford have estimated they would have to sink in additional $50bn to get level 4 autonomy. Our start-up was recently dissolved, and the big players are choosing an incremental/evolutionary approach to get there. It's gonna take a while and I'm not at all certain if we will ever get there 100%.
S Steven Wolfram has ressemblences with a theory of everything called Quantum Realism from Brian Withworth (NZ), take a look, it's a distributed simulation theory, high energy photons in different resonant states create the electron, neutrino, quarks
1:18:40 “Mozart gets all the contents in his head at the same time (point?) And then breaks it down into its constituent parts”- LOGICALLY- This appropriately is when “Unlimited and Infinite make a point contact”!? And Mozart starts his Own Universe!?
Interesting thought. I have long felt that the principles that an artist applies are the same principles that are involved in the making of our universe.
01:06:58 about boundary and identity, I highly recommend (shamelessly) a video I did about that topic using clips from Unbelievable and Jonathan Pageau th-cam.com/video/fLwwzhbK04M/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for bringing these people together! Very enjoyable conversation. Unfortunately, Eastern religions are not well understood. From the Mahayana point of view, the bodhisattva incorporates wisdom and love in the practice of bringing ultimate truth into the world. The bodhisattva also makes a sacrifice by not leaving this world until all beings are liberated from suffering. Zen especially considers the two truths of Nagarjuna, the ultimate and the conventional, as absolutely the same, interdependently arising moment by moment. There is by the way, also a trinity in Buddhism: the three bodies of Buddha: the dharmakaya as ultimate reality, the nirmanakaya as manifestation of the ultimate in this world, and the sambhogakaya (“bliss body”) as the truth of the middle, the reward for practice. The Buddha is understood as bringing love long before Christ. It is suspected that Christianity and Buddhism were interrelated, e.g. the wise men from the East bringing gifts for the Christ child. Would like to be in contact: info@mkzen.org
I do think the Abrahamic covenant and the Crucifiction/incarnation have a special significance (grace) that seperate them from all other traditions, however i do agree that eastern traditions are presented here as a caricature which don't do them justice.
@@As-fs6qd Thank you, I agree and certainly don't want to minimize the Western traditions. I am active in interfaith work. When I asked Norman Fischer, who is a Jewish Zen teacher, if there was something like grace in Buddhism (because I experienced it), he said yes, but we don't call it that. The strength of Buddhism is its openness; I was told by my teachers to hold beliefs lightly!
@@alheidis Certainly grace exist in Buddhism esp Mahayana, and very specifically in Pure land which believes only in grace(tariki : other power).The Nembutsu is pretty much the Buddhist equivalent of the Jesus prayer of hesychasm However the Abrahamic covenant allows man a personal relationship to god, I don’t know why collectively as a civilization the west would want to choose Buddhism over that?Ive met many Buddhist lay people and monks who say they believe in god but they don’t have any personal relationship with him and don’t even entertain the possibility. How unfortunate.I don’t think Buddhism can ever satisfy the western imagination as the Abrahamic god is exactly that: the god of the imagination, the living god (hypostasis)and that’s why he will triumph over all other gods.
@@As-fs6qd I have never been able to believe in a god, even as a child I found it impossible and was glad to have found Zen, where I am encouraged not have beliefs. But I think it's great if people find comfort in that kind of belief and I do not discourage that.
@@alheidis i completely understand what you mean when you say you cant believe and have no problem with it....zen is non theistic ,not atheisitic...i suppose it can be viewed as a kind of humility, not expecting /demanding anything from the absolute.?I was just trying to elaborate on the idea woflgang is trying to express about what distinguishes Christianity or Abrahamic monotheism form other faiths.
I think it’s because, compared to God, the cosmos is flat. The geometry marks out a circle using a center point, an outer point and a compass, but the geometry is on a higher level than the circle. Nevertheless, he is in constant connection to the whole. That’s the picture I have, anyway. Wolfgang talks more about it in his books, especially Ancient Wisdom, which I am just reading now.
I have read criticism of Wolfgangs vertical causalitie's explanation of instantaneous action of particles @any distance. Returning back to classical observations of wave creation by aether, first rejected, but later accepted by fraudulent Einstein, should fix all philosophical-quantum discrepancies.
I enjoyed this conversation but i am afraid that these folks are not understanding the concept of Maya properly. The concept of Maya is understood differently within multiple schools of Hinduism and also in Buddhism. So, the key udea that these filks are hanging rheir hats on as to what distinguishes Christianity is not entirely accurate. The host should have a discussion with Wolfgang Smith, an Advaitin, a Kashmiri Shaivite, a Dualist (all Hindu schools) and a Buddhist on the same platform. They would be able to point out the inaccuracies in Dr. Smith’s understanding of eastern philosophies. In short, I am a perenialist and Dr Smith would be too if he actually understood things more clearly.
An irrational number is an infinite series expressing a discrete ratio. Foundational Principles: Nature is lazy, it likes to copy. Everything is information. Information is not stuff, it is relationships. All behaviors are constrained by relationships. All behaviors are emergent. Every engine takes advantage of a difference. Everything is an approximation of something else. Ratio may be the only thing that is discrete. The bending of spacetime is a variation of scale. Behavior is built from a quantum of action in a field or flow. If dimensions are virtual in the same way that the dimensions of consciousness are virtual, perhaps the density of information in a field affects the scale or bending of spacetime. Gravity and scale are related. Gravity and information are related. Information and scale are related. If it's relational, there's a geometry involved. Truth as a scale coordinate; truth lives in the macro world, the micro world is uncertain. Truth as a time coordinate; truth lives in the past, the future is uncertain. Information from the micro future is formed into a macro past. The process of formation involves entanglement. Coffee and cream; 1) separate and highly compressible, 2) complex and not compressible, 3) homogeneous and once again, highly compressible. Information appears to increase and then decrease, perhaps in a bell shaped curve.
@@TheMeaningCode Physics: The Information Philosopher site Niel Turok the astonishing simplicity of everything on youtube. Symmetry at Closer to truth site Robret Kuhn Bob Laughlin A different universe on youtube
Jesus has been seen as a loving Master - using love - throughout. What about Jesus having gone - to the East - to study spirituality.? In India - he was known - to have gone to ancient Pune - for the task. India's teachings are so full of love and again so - that the statements here - about India - are so full of holes and ignorance - to be laughable. You will have to probe deeper or dive deeper - to get the real pearls. Good luck.
It was Lord Krishna - who ordered - that love be central - in spiritual/yogic endeavour - from then on. A few thousand years ago - maybe? Also the Guru-aspirant relationship - cannot be culminated or realised in tits fullness - with love being the only method - between the spiritual parties. When love is there - words/concepts etc - are useless. It is for love - to reveal the End - the Real Being. This does not harm - your faith in Master Jesus - should just clarify some things .... Fare thee well.
This is so frustrating... Christianity as unique... Clearly you don't understand Vedic traditions at all. You're barely scratching the surface here and struggling to understand what I've found stated with utmost clarity in vedantic traditions. Typical of westerners thinking they know better. Wolfgang even separates the creator from his creation @44:45 god is not seperate from the cosmos. What the icons (which are beautiful) point to, Vedic traditions explain with complete clarity.
I think the idea was that the Vedic traditions prioritise the transcendence of God and discard the immanence. I am not knowledgable enough to tell but I also suspect that this is not accurate. In Islam as well, as in the work of Ibn Al Arabi, the immanence is not discarded in the least.
The art was beautiful. Your words were beautiful. The cosmos and god were not so. God is outside the cosmos. God is not material. The cosmos is. the relationship between the two (or three) depending... doesn't work. Plus it leaves out the connection, which I assume is Jesus. Unfortunately, religion is man-made art form like your images, words, and demeanors. Escher shows how anything can happen in art. Whitman and Joyce could weave the word like some mythical Greek goddess at her loom. Shakespeare could create the words then put it on a stage for the common man to glean. And yet for us he is a genius. God didn't write the bible. Man has limitations. God has limitations. There are no ghosts. Jesus wasn't resurrected. Have you ever seen people walk past a beautiful painting or someone sleep through a classic musical piece. Or, have you ever seen a person walk over the axis Mundo of any civilization, as if meant nothing at all. Or have you ever seen someone blaspheme anything you consider holy? Well, you do it every day. You do it to every moment of the past and present and future to. I believe Black Elk said something like anywhere you are is the center of all.
I feel very privileged to have been able to listen in on this conversation, thanks to all.
This is fantastic and earned you a new subscriber. There are so many places in this discusssion where I had to stop and write down what was said, then back it up and replay it. I base a great video on whether or not I want to rewatch it immediately, this is one I will listen to several times. Thanks.
BTW, please enable Closed Captions for those of us who need the written word to fully take ideas in.
Can confirm, it was a challenge to process all of it, but it was very, very worthwhile. ❤
Karen is a certified OG of This Little Corner 💪
Tremendous researcher, synthesizer of wisdom & connection-maker. 🏆
She did the work & it shows, big time; congrats & thank you 🌺❤️
I followed (or more accurately, was dragged through) the Peterson-Pageau pipeline into the Orthodox Church. I read Wolfgangs book a few months ago and loved it. Glad to see this crossover. Thank you.
Which book?
Me too, from Pageau to the Orthodox Church. He shines when he focuses on the topics covered in the video.
When jonathan related wolfgangs icon to the mountain my mind was blown. Super interesting talk.
Me too, as soon as he said it, boom, the two became one in my mind.
Interesting. I’m just starting the video but if I recall correctly, Karen asked Wolfgang about seeing the icon as a mountain in a previous conversation but Wolfgang said he would not recommend doing so. But again, I am not certain about my memory on the conversation.
@@playswithbricks Dr. Smith said he didn't think it will map in this video as well, but it just rings true to me anyway.
The Icon, as its shown here, looks like some sort of primordial power button. Great guests, Karen. Keep up the great work!
Great catch! Being a cosmic image, and the cosmos being potential, it also makes sense. It also looks like the alchemical sun symbol which represent attention across time, life eternal. They both show the same basic concept. And it's the same with the cross, which is the sacrifice of attention for memory, power yielding to authority, time yielding to space, and accepting space within, while space in time accepts time without.
Reason is not the jewel at the heart of reality, love is.
Iconography as communication in the age of illiteracy.
01:30:00 Thank you Jonathan. Sorry about the ugly Churches. My parish is building a traditional Romanesque Church and I couldn't be more excited.
So much in common with Karl Fristons’ work in this conversation. A thing cannot be a ‘thing’ without a border. The inside and outside of markov blankets.
Such an inspirational gathering. Great, just great Karen. Thank you all.
The relational sidedness of A B S Matrix and Markov Blanket
•X(s Rb(mA )Z( aM)Br S)Y•
Just amazing!!!
This was one of the most coherent and beautiful conversations I have ever heard. Thank you all! ❤
Thank you! I loved getting those two together.
A conversation full of bangers! What a blessing it is to be able to take in the thoughts of great thinkers and minds such as these. Thank you so much Karen for bringing them all together and facilitating this dialogue. Edit: Thank you everyone for coming together and having such a fun conversation. Normally I prefer one-on-one conversations to listen to, but in cases like this I thought everyone played a useful role in guiding everything along perfectly. It was great having someone who could tie things back in to previous subjects, it made the talk feel very contiguous.
Wow! I love the lines: "measurement cannot exist without identity," "constraints and borders are necessary to even begin [an artistic endeavor]" and "[having constraints and boundaries] establishes your work."
There's an absolutely insane amount of richness to this conversation. "The measurer cannot be measured." That's awesome. Love this whole bringing together of ideas that have so much resonance with each other. The tripartite universe and the trinity stuff go together like the macro and the microcosms. Fractally reflective. Never even thought that iconography, like two-dimensional flat planes, could be connected to the ideas of time and lacking distance, and that just adding the simple illusion of greater space into that field would have so many ramifications. This video was a trip.
bangers indeed!
Your erudite summary (although only touching the surface of this rich three dimensional tapestry) was a pleasure to read!"
@@auggiemarsh8682 Very kind of you, thank you.
Karen, what an outstanding pairing and what a fantastic topic. Looking forward to this one.
Wolfgang and John Vervaeke both seem to have great affection for Jonathan, don’t blame them, I do to. I hope he does well ☦️🙏🏻 thanks for this interesting talk!
Great installment in this meta-conversation.
I have dreamt about this conversation for years !!! Thank you Karen for making this happen !!!
Excellent conversation. Thank you Karen and guests.
Thanks a lot, - this was lovely in all all directions +
What a brilliant idea to have brought these 4 beautiful beings together
Johnathan, the icon works are stunning! I don't understand iconography, only a little from you, but so very impressed with your work!
amazing discussion! Thanks, I learned a lot !
Jonathan and Wolfgang Smith! My 2 favorite people
This didn't disappoint.
Identity, AKA "the master gauge," Great conversation.
A pearl in a field as conversations go.
This was just HEAVEN and Earth perfection .....🙌🏽🙌🏽❤❤❤❤🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🤣
Thank you Karen, this was great.
Polar opposite Icons of Everything. Jonathans is jam packed with complexity and the first one is bare bones simplicity.
Man, the last half of this conversation had so many nuggets! Got my gears going!
Mercy as recalibration in time to make movement possible, visioning action, living icons, creators, resolution of the sacrifice problem as that which is cut off becomes the glory.
“Mercy as recalibration in time to make movement possible” … The Lord, in His mercy, puts obstacles in our way when we’re on the wrong path. The obstacles are a gift to help us grow. Mercy plus recalibration in time makes upward movement possible. He is always knitting together a better story for us, and it seems like our contribution is the stumbling and His is the recalibration of mercy.
Mind-blowing, invigorating-inspiring! This conversation left me with a sense of deep contentment, a sense of fullness. Deserves another listening with a note-book.....! Thank you all!
Bravo!! Thank you Karen.
D.C. Schindler goes to great lengths in showing how Plato uses Socrates to exhibit the inevitability of the good to manifest itself within the particular. Or perhaps, the redeeming nature of the good manifested within the corporal. It exist within each level of that icon of ontology *_and_* without. It is not found on Plato's divided line but is implicit within it. It is past the point of rationality, that which moves the philosopher _back_ into the cave. This is why at first, the philosopher's decent into the cave seems arbitrary. But it isn't, it's just beyond the limits of rationality. Plato demonstrates this ineffability through the character of Socrates and his dramatic positioning in the dialog.
Thank you for putting this talk together.
Love is the concept here where we find God desires Mercy over Sacrifice. 58:19
Great conversation. Thank you. I do think Taoism is an Eastern exception to escaping/destroying manifestation. Certain forms of Zen also clearly show a return after seeing through, with a making more real.
Corbin’s “Ibrahimica Harmonica” also addresses these issues, along with comparative religion, without being perennial, and respecting the traditions and church. Corbin remained Lutheran, and David Neijwars is an Orthodox Christian follower of his.
That said, this conversation, and the images brings out the unique wealth of connection to the infinite. Thanks again.
Particularity in the Trinity.
To Dr Smith’s point, Ellis Potter’s lecture titled Comparative Worldviews is a brilliant analysis of the importance of the Trinity to understand the structure of reality and love.
m.th-cam.com/video/8tQ66A_THKo/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for pointing me to Ellis Potter. His book, Three Theories of Everything, is on kindle unlimited and I’m reading and enjoying it now.
@@TheMeaningCode Thanks for your work; the fruits of it are appreciated ❤️
53:58 - C.S. Lewis - the blades of grass in paradise being too sharp for us. They're actually too real for us. You see in the church fathers they say in the eschaton St Paul will be more St Paul and St Peter will be more St Peter as they enter into more and more of their theosis, and becoming god more and more, they do also become more of themselves.
55:30 - Christianity is a better at explaining nonduality than Vedanta - we do not deny the infinite transcendence of God, but in the transcendence all of reality can participate. Rather than wanting to extinguish manifestation and see it as some kind of illusion or an illusion or mist, that will be scattered once things return to God,
56:22 - we literally could say: "Christ saves the world".
57:35 - love is the coexistence of unity and multiplicity, that's what love is, because if you love something, you don't want it to vanish, you don't want it to disappear. You want it to exist as different from you and then be bound to it at the same time. It's one of the most beautiful ways to understand how all of creation can coexist with God and within God.
58:16 the connection to the Divine is what fills it with reality solidifying the world in a good way.
1:03:35 - If we understand the story of Christ we will see that one of the things Christ is doing pretty much all the time in His story, He is constantly transforming death into glory, that's the best way to understand it. The crown of thorns is best version of that because the crown of thorns is a consequence of the fall, it is multiplicity itself, it's like hostile multiplicity. You can say all these spiky things that pierce us. Then Christ is able to transform that into a crown and then you realize that's what Christ is actually doing all the time which is why He goes to the margin all the time, why He engages with the Samaritan women for example. Here a woman whose had several husbands to the extent that she now living in an illegitimate relationship with a man, so she's a whore for all intents and purposes. And Christ is saying I will marry you, I will be your seventh husband and I will give you water that will flow into eternity. So He takes her low state and brings it up and He does that constantly, whether it's the woman with an issue of blood, whether it's resurrection itself. That's what resurrection is the transformation of death into glory. So the whole story of Christ, not just as an abstract image of the incarnation, but in the story, we see how Christ is constantly showing us how the world, even death itself can be full and transformed into light.
1:05:44 - without an identity you can't measure anything. You don't measure things without identity. Measurement presupposes identity. Presupposes telos and then presupposes a bound, something that binds it. And those are the two sacrifices. They are the sacrifices of Yom Kippur. There's a sacrifice up towards identity, towards that that's the source of identity, and there's a scapegoat sacrifice of cutting off that which doesn't belong within the identity. So without those two sacrifices, without giving up all your best up towards the identity and without cutting off all that which doesn't belong - you can't measure, there's no possibility of measuring. So measuring has to be bound up in the notion of sacrifice.
1:08:34 - it's really the Yom Kippur sacrifice. You could say there's two goats. One pure goat which is offered up to God and then becomes the meal that we eat, so give up and then we get a blessing, but we also get cohesion because we eat the meal together, we eat the goat. We share the same body because we sacrifice up. But there's also an aspect of where we put our sins on the goat and chase it out of the city. So that is the cutting off that which doesn't belong in the entity.
1:11:18 - Identities are given, identities are a gift from heaven. They come down from above. You cannot get to identities from below. They come down from heaven and bind phenomena together into unities.
Thanks
As Dr Wolfgang said suffering leads to Divine and that can be called sacrifice
A hologram is n dimensions of information in n minus one dimensions.
In a hologram, the whole of the information is spread across the entire thing but the relationships at each point are slightly different. Information is stored in the relationships. Information is a difference that can make a difference.
Thanks everyone!
Regarding measurement, consider Revelation 21. Bulgakov does a lot with this in Jacob's Ladder.
one aspect on the philosophy of the Cross '' The Cross of Serboi and gates of knowledge'' , ps Great Talk
The fire in the core of the earth communes with the fire in the core of stars. What can be more intelligent than that dance?
I can't help but look at Wolfgang's Cosmic Icon and immediately think of the Cabalistic Tzimtzum.
The Finitude of Faith
"God is not infinite; He is the synthesis of infinity and boundary" [G K Chesterton]
The All in All
@@TheMeaningCode 54:24 Jonathan was quoting Lewis's concepts of heaven from "The Great Divorce".
@@patrickwagner2978 53:55 👍
Great video!
Another place I've seen Wolfgang's icon is in the graphical depiction of the Tzimtzum, the self-contraction of God in Lurianic Kabbalah. However, in those diagrams, the correspondence of the icon is inverted relative to Wolfgang's icon. In the Tzimtzum diagram, the center corresponds to the material world, the periphery (and everything beyond the periphery) corresponds to The Uncontainable/Ain Soph (by way of it being outside the circle), and the line connecting the two corresponds to the Sephirotic Tree of Life.
I'm not sure what the implications of this mapping is. I guess one main difference is that Wolfgang doesn't put anything corresponding to God into his icon, whereas that which is outside (and arguably beneath, e.g. the paper on which the icon is drawn) in the Tzimtzum icon corresponds to something akin to God. This might account for the relative inversion of the two icons.
---
I don't agree with Wolfgang's idea that God is completely other from the rest of being, what he calls creation.
Any interaction, including creation, requires ontological overlap. If this idea is surrendered, then no valid claims can be made of anything. Nothing can be said to be radically other from creation, since in order to validly make that claim, one had to presuppose the notion of strictly partial ontological overlap.
Strictly partial ontological overlap is, in short, that any two conceivable notions must be the same in a sense and different in a sense; for every way in which two things are the same there are at least two ways in which they are different, and for every way in which they are different, there are at least two ways in which they are the same. No valid notion which is distinct from the absence of a notion is exempt from this requirement, God included.
If God is seen as the anchor of reality at the ever-present center of all being (not necessarily the center of Wolfgang's icon, but the center beyond and beneath that icon) then to say that creation has no link to that center is to cut off all that is not God from God and to let it float away into Chaos. This would render all of Being indistinguishable from non-Being, which is in stark contrast to the unavoidably apparent notion that there is Being.
---
Regarding emergence and what it actually is, I agree that in most cases it is effectively used as a synonym for magic. However, through the work of Eric Hoel and Wojciech Zurek, a plausible explanation of what emergence actually is may be available.
In short, emergence is the transference of properties which are invariant under scaling and interaction between different scales. This is similar to the idea of objects as persisting through time, though here, it is invariance of properties under interaction, which is a particular type of persistence through time. This type of invariance allows for information to be redundantly copies across multiple elements. All those elements which contain this information constitute the higher-order emergent object. Though I'm not sure if "contain this information" is the right terminology, since it is more of a correspondence whose logic is determined by the invariant which allows for the redundancy of the correspondence in the first place (e.g. the conservation of angular momentum for networks of quantum entanglement).
I don't feel like I explained that very well, but hopefully it gets part of the point across.
In even shorter, emergence is enabled through redundancy, which allows for a higher-order consensus between disparate elements.
There's a video on Quantum Darwinism by PBS Spacetime that outlines this pretty well for those interested: watch?v=vSnq5Hs3_wI
There's a comment on that video by Steven Brunwasser (starts "I was having a hard time understanding...") that helped me understand how this related to emergence in general. It's one of the top comments, so it shouldn't be too hard to find.
Also, I think that the notion of non-simultaneity might (emphasis on might; I haven't though about this point too hard) be an example of a notion that doesn't scale through all the layers of reality, similar to how some quantum mechanical effects don't scale up into the macroscopic. This is in contrast to things like conservation laws that result from the symmetries/invariants of reality, which do scale through all the layers of reality (by way of them being invariant). That may be why it seems to be in contrast to Wolfgang's notion of there being simultaneity.
---
Regarding Wolfram, the mapping I see is of Physical Space to the realm of space and time, Branchial Space, despite the name, to the realm of only time (where each branch of rule application contains its own space as opposed to being located in space), and Rulial Space to the realm of no space and no time (since rules exist outside of time and outside of the results of them being run). Would this place GR at the periphery, QFT at the intermediate realm, and mathematics at the center?
---
That which is the presupposition for the existence of something can be seen as a gift to that thing. One can't normally generate or alter things prior to one's existence, so it makes sense to think that the presuppositions must be given by something other than the thing in question. However, self-making things are those things which paradoxically create (or perhaps alter?) their own preconditions. This must be the case for reality as a whole, since there is nothing outside of reality which can "give" reality it's own preconditions (see the part about strictly partial ontological overlap).(emphasis on might; I haven't though about this point too hard)
By the way, that PBS Space Time video might also be relevant to the recent discussion between Glenn and Perry regarding what exactly counts as an observer, or put another way, that which "collapses" the wavefunction.
Which PBS Space Time video?
@@TheMeaningCode The one I mentioned in the first comment.
watch?v=vSnq5Hs3_wI
Can somebody chew through this comment & summarize? 😅
Cross represent four letters of genetic DNA,four elements ,four seasons ,four layer of one life but also day , sacrifice is nécessaire to combine the horizontal causality with vertical one ..
Karl Barth said that what distinguishes Christian theology is the particularity of the incarnation: Jesus the Christ was born in a particular place at a particular time (bound by space and time). Perhaps as we explore the experience of incarnation as also bound by birth and death, we could meet the Perrenialists by using A.N. Whitehead's understanding that each incarnation contributes to the becoming of God. Is there some way this can be described using Wolfgang's intermediary figure? How does each incarnation "matter"?
The outer edge as I realised it has to be consist of all colours in rain bow rates a very thin layer of electromagnetic waves
52:22 I just read again today a quote in P. T. Forsyth's book The Work of Christ: An able member of the "New Theology" group was conversing with my informant, who said, 'For me all Christianity turns on the unspeakable mercy of God to my soul in the Cross of Christ.' The reply was blankly, ' I do not understand it.' My own comment is, that the major question today, as always, is the significance of the death on the cross of the God-Man. It is this unique message of Christianity which is the most resisted by the world of alternative religions and philosophies, and which is most attacked (rather ignorantly and blindly for the most part) in this 'our little corner of the internet'. We have the questions both concerning Christ, ' Who do you say that I am?' and what do we say about what he accomplished on the cross?
johnathan at his best
I can't help but think that the tabernacle as constructed in ancient Israel was also tripartite. There was the Outer Court, the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies where the divine was thought to dwell. I believe I am correct in that the tribes of Israel encamped around the tabernacle so that the Holy of Holies was actually at the center of the camp ala the "punto dello stelo." Hopefully that is not just me projecting, but it's an interesting idea.
Identity is received, rather than achieved
Mrs Karen, videos like this are a salve to the Reductio ad absurdum as Dr. Wolfgang stated near the end. Thank you much your work is appreciate beyond measure.
Been thinking about sacrifice lately, quite like Jonathan's mapping of the 2 goats on the day of Atonement. Space/place clean v unclean : measurement is sacrifice.
Maybe this is shared in WS.s work, but how does the tripartite icon look when representing the micro and macrocosm as a fractal. How do multiple new centers and sweeping circles arise? What puts the perimeter point into its cyclical motion?
Sabine Hossenfelders video from yesterday referred to recent evidence from observations of star clusters which supports MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). The distributions of stars in star clusters has long been known to violate the principals of Einsteinian physics, which necessitated the invention of hypothetical “Dark Matter”. MOND has been proposed as an alternate.
Thanks. I’ll check it out!
Wolfgangs work might change the world..but his horrible experiences with the schuon cult has definitely effected the clarity of his views. He has just swapped Vedic perennialism with Platonic perrenialism,( the golden thread) he is still a perennialist,.Also Brahma is Atma and Atma is Brahma, they are in an interactive relationship of dynamic tension, its not a dualism in any sense,.Also maya does not mean illusionary as in not real, that's just imposing cartesian and to some extent Neoplatonic spirit/body dualism on the vedic concept. Having said that perhaps he needs alot more space to clarify his views?
Thank you for this!
Agreed; nuanced understanding of (almost all) Eastern Wisdom traditions seems to be lacking - it’s a very long-lasting issue in This Little Corner.
All in good time 👍❤️
Sorry for the late comment.
When you measure you sacrifice the quality in order to get a certainty. In order to get certainty you have to reduce to something abstract. That abstraction is a disenchantment. It is reducing to something that is graspable (manipulable) and therefor it is putting constraints on the intelligibility that can be participated in.
In some sense we measure when we participate be cause we "NAME" and then we treat as if that name. And we hope that the name we give is reflective of the true nature.
I am not quite clear on what you mean by ineligibility.
@@TheMeaningCode I'm sorry I think I used the auto correct and picked the wrong correction.
I meant intelligibility. When we relate to reality we try to find a connectedness in order to get a grip (agency) or at least an overview with stability for safety. In order to do that we reduce the combinatorial explosion of information into a limited set of patterns that we believe (assume) allow us to do that. The categories that allow us to get information provide intelligibility, information to relate to.
The icon looks like the beginning of sacred geometry.
I think semiotics and the work of Charles Sanders Peirce could be relevant in understanding the forms and varieties of representation.
The bible provides the precondition for truth itself.
Karen's thought discussed around the 1:19:00 mark about "what if love is the one rule" sounds right on target. 1 John 4:8 "God is love." A really wonderful panel and discussion.
12:30 ...My interpretation of the image shown!?- MINE - Is a Spaceless, Timeless, Cone Pyramid viewed from the rim!?
Sicilian Crosses have rays of light, lines (Psalm 19) radiating out from the crossroads of the cross: the center of the cross as convergence of/from all directions, coincidence of opposites? thereby putting all in place.
Was this close to solving Sorites paradox?
.....Just a dot.... hoping for a multitude of dots radiating from the centre, forming a protective outer rim of the circle....
Psalm 91:14 (RHE) (90-14) Because he hoped in me I will deliver him: I will protect him because he hath known my name.
I'm curious about the statement Dr. Smith made about Einsteinian physics. It's my understanding that relativity is a framework that accounts for aberrations not explained by Newtonian physics, as well as predicting new effects that have been experimentally verified after the prediction. In other words it's not something that's easily gotten rid of without new theories that fully account for all the things relativity explained. I have no technical knowledge of Dr. Smith's ideas, but I'd like to hear him dig a little deeper into what he does with observations that confirm that both space and time are "bendable" as predicted by Einstein if he requires a universality of simultaneity for his own theory.
Nice
Hi there cutie pies!!!🥰🥰🥰
50:00 religious pluralism is not the same as Christian perennialism.
Uniqueness and exclusivity is not alone. Division and difference goes all the way down. What Pageau just said as about kenosis cannot be immediately forgotten in the dismissal or perennialism.
I made a video about this. 😊
This seems to be connected to Dr McGilchrist’s understanding that moral
space is curved, which he aligns with the coincidence of opposites.
Federico Fellini has a very strange ending to one of his films with characters of his story moving in a circle together and slowly the lights go out. It seems to fit his view of our modern world.
How does this connect to mercy and context?
Could you say more about why particularly mercy and context?
Matthew quotes Christ twice as saying “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice…” which fascinates me and every time I hear sacrifice, my mind goes to mercy.
I read Dante continually and the thread running through his great work is mercy, context.
There can be no morality without mercy, without context because we carry the divine image. Christ heals because he recognizes the unique context of each person, their story. It is that very recognition that transforms.
Mercy is reverberative. It connects people. It resolves superficial difference and it definitely clicks into the narrative world that way.
There is something about reverberation and reflection in mercy, maybe creating the self and the other. Maybe that is what we call moral.
As I understand it from sacred geometry, the coincidence of opposites is what happens when you take two opposite ends of a pole and bring them together into a circle. The opposites touch. Mercy and justice are such a pair. Justice can be a mercy and mercy can be an act of justice. It all depends on the context and the perspective.
Alice Rohrwacher, Italian film director,, (Happy as Lazarus, one of her films), maintains that the Italian people of the country lived in circular time well into the 20th century. I spend quite a bit of time in Italy and I can still feel the circularity in the society and culture. I think it is strongly connected to attention,, obviously. The corporeal reality is strong and palpable and yet when attention is directed, there is this intense moving into the unity of that moment, like the left hemisphere redeemed as emissary to the right. It can be as simple as asking direction and then this undivided attention is given. It feels close to holy. Not sure about justice and mercy as opposites. Maybe justice as the grid for vision and mercy as the great unique creative act.
It all depends on your definition of God. Whose God, the Jewish God, the Christian God, the Islamic God, or the Hindu gods?
Can anyone describe more fully the intermediary space, place of soul and psyche?
Does anyone understand Jonathan’s “coil” at the corporeal? I can see the axis at the centre, something like Dante’s wheels…
Dante uses the circle as grounding form in his entire work. Once he is at the centre of the circles of hell, he meets Lucifer and then strangely, it is as if a spell is broken and he starts the ascent up the mountain of Purgatorio. Even Paradiso is circular, yet to Dr Smith’s point, it is 2 dimensional and even though Dante rises through the heavenly spheres, he clearly states that it is spaceless in terms of any distance.
I’ll see what I can find. In one of his books, Wolfgang points to the view that the ancient geometers expressed of the compass measuring out a circle.
From that, the picture I get is that the center marks the spot that the Hand that holds the compass touches the cosmos and starts everything, and the circle creates the limit. Maybe something to do with finiteness and transcendence and the need for a space between?
I was just reading this and found. it helpful. plato.stanford.edu/entries/cusanus/#NicTho
01:12:00 Hey, I'm working on self-driving cars! 😅
Work regard to the autonomy, higher ups at Ford have estimated they would have to sink in additional $50bn to get level 4 autonomy. Our start-up was recently dissolved, and the big players are choosing an incremental/evolutionary approach to get there. It's gonna take a while and I'm not at all certain if we will ever get there 100%.
Yes, what they have at this point is good only as a novelty.
The Continūum of Meaning.
...
S Steven Wolfram has ressemblences with a theory of everything called Quantum Realism from Brian Withworth (NZ), take a look, it's a distributed simulation theory, high energy photons in different resonant states create the electron, neutrino, quarks
1:18:40 “Mozart gets all the contents in his head at the same time (point?) And then breaks it down into its constituent parts”- LOGICALLY- This appropriately is when “Unlimited and Infinite make a point contact”!? And Mozart starts his Own Universe!?
Interesting thought. I have long felt that the principles that an artist applies are the same principles that are involved in the making of our universe.
How many geniuses can you have on one stream
01:06:58 about boundary and identity, I highly recommend (shamelessly) a video I did about that topic using clips from Unbelievable and Jonathan Pageau th-cam.com/video/fLwwzhbK04M/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for bringing these people together! Very enjoyable conversation.
Unfortunately, Eastern religions are not well understood. From the Mahayana point of view, the bodhisattva incorporates wisdom and love in the practice of bringing ultimate truth into the world. The bodhisattva also makes a sacrifice by not leaving this world until all beings are liberated from suffering.
Zen especially considers the two truths of Nagarjuna, the ultimate and the conventional, as absolutely the same, interdependently arising moment by moment. There is by the way, also a trinity in Buddhism: the three bodies of Buddha: the dharmakaya as ultimate reality, the nirmanakaya as manifestation of the ultimate in this world, and the sambhogakaya (“bliss body”) as the truth of the middle, the reward for practice.
The Buddha is understood as bringing love long before Christ. It is suspected that Christianity and Buddhism were interrelated, e.g. the wise men from the East bringing gifts for the Christ child.
Would like to be in contact: info@mkzen.org
I do think the Abrahamic covenant and the Crucifiction/incarnation have a special significance (grace) that seperate them from all other traditions, however i do agree that eastern traditions are presented here as a caricature which don't do them justice.
@@As-fs6qd Thank you, I agree and certainly don't want to minimize the Western traditions. I am active in interfaith work. When I asked Norman Fischer, who is a Jewish Zen teacher, if there was something like grace in Buddhism (because I experienced it), he said yes, but we don't call it that. The strength of Buddhism is its openness; I was told by my teachers to hold beliefs lightly!
@@alheidis Certainly grace exist in Buddhism esp Mahayana, and very specifically in Pure land which believes only in grace(tariki : other power).The Nembutsu is pretty much the Buddhist equivalent of the Jesus prayer of hesychasm However the Abrahamic covenant allows man a personal relationship to god, I don’t know why collectively as a civilization the west would want to choose Buddhism over that?Ive met many Buddhist lay people and monks who say they believe in god but they don’t have any personal relationship with him and don’t even entertain the possibility. How unfortunate.I don’t think Buddhism can ever satisfy the western imagination as the Abrahamic god is exactly that: the god of the imagination, the living god (hypostasis)and that’s why he will triumph over all other gods.
@@As-fs6qd I have never been able to believe in a god, even as a child I found it impossible and was glad to have found Zen, where I am encouraged not have beliefs. But I think it's great if people find comfort in that kind of belief and I do not discourage that.
@@alheidis i completely understand what you mean when you say you cant believe and have no problem with it....zen is non theistic ,not atheisitic...i suppose it can be viewed as a kind of humility, not expecting /demanding anything from the absolute.?I was just trying to elaborate on the idea woflgang is trying to express about what distinguishes Christianity or Abrahamic monotheism form other faiths.
I don't get it, 12 :30 why is the icon flat instead of being a mountain?
I think it’s because, compared to God, the cosmos is flat. The geometry marks out a circle using a center point, an outer point and a compass, but the geometry is on a higher level than the circle. Nevertheless, he is in constant connection to the whole. That’s the picture I have, anyway. Wolfgang talks more about it in his books, especially Ancient Wisdom, which I am just reading now.
The icon is the garden, rid of space, distance, maybe.
Time is duration, not time, maybe.
The AI algorithms are modified by the sw itself, programmers loose control of it after many iterations
I dont get it
Could you be more specific?
I have read criticism of Wolfgangs vertical causalitie's explanation of instantaneous action of particles @any distance. Returning back to classical observations of wave creation by aether, first rejected, but later accepted by fraudulent Einstein, should fix all philosophical-quantum discrepancies.
I believe it’s action on particles, not action of particles.
I enjoyed this conversation but i am afraid that these folks are not understanding the concept of Maya properly. The concept of Maya is understood differently within multiple schools of Hinduism and also in Buddhism. So, the key udea that these filks are hanging rheir hats on as to what distinguishes Christianity is not entirely accurate. The host should have a discussion with Wolfgang Smith, an Advaitin, a Kashmiri Shaivite, a Dualist (all Hindu schools) and a Buddhist on the same platform. They would be able to point out the inaccuracies in Dr. Smith’s understanding of eastern philosophies. In short, I am a perenialist and Dr Smith would be too if he actually understood things more clearly.
Could you share what you see as the key difference?
An irrational number is an infinite series expressing a discrete ratio.
Foundational Principles:
Nature is lazy, it likes to copy.
Everything is information.
Information is not stuff, it is relationships.
All behaviors are constrained by relationships.
All behaviors are emergent.
Every engine takes advantage of a difference.
Everything is an approximation of something else.
Ratio may be the only thing that is discrete.
The bending of spacetime is a variation of scale.
Behavior is built from a quantum of action in a field or flow.
If dimensions are virtual in the same way that the dimensions of consciousness are virtual, perhaps the density of information in a field affects the scale or bending of spacetime.
Gravity and scale are related.
Gravity and information are related.
Information and scale are related.
If it's relational, there's a geometry involved.
Truth as a scale coordinate; truth lives in the macro world, the micro world is uncertain.
Truth as a time coordinate; truth lives in the past, the future is uncertain.
Information from the micro future is formed into a macro past.
The process of formation involves entanglement.
Coffee and cream; 1) separate and highly compressible, 2) complex and not compressible, 3) homogeneous and once again, highly compressible.
Information appears to increase and then decrease, perhaps in a bell shaped curve.
I’ll print this out and spend some time on it, since you obviously have. In agreement on much of it, but not all. Maybe we should talk.
@@TheMeaningCode Physics:
The Information Philosopher site
Niel Turok the astonishing simplicity of everything on youtube.
Symmetry at Closer to truth site Robret Kuhn
Bob Laughlin A different universe on youtube
@@TheMeaningCode I can't post any links, they get deleted.
There are links on my channel.
I cannot keep up with Jonathan
It's so much information these days, i don't get the time 🙁
It’s true. We are blessed to be drinking from a firehose. Enough for everyone:-)
that old should write about GOD
Jesus has been seen as a loving Master - using love - throughout.
What about Jesus having gone - to the East - to study spirituality.?
In India - he was known - to have gone to ancient Pune - for the task.
India's teachings are so full of love and again so - that the statements here - about India - are so full of holes and ignorance - to be laughable.
You will have to probe deeper or dive deeper - to get the real pearls. Good luck.
It was Lord Krishna - who ordered - that love be central - in spiritual/yogic endeavour - from then on. A few thousand years ago - maybe?
Also the Guru-aspirant relationship - cannot be culminated or realised in tits fullness - with love being the only method - between the spiritual parties.
When love is there - words/concepts etc - are useless.
It is for love - to reveal the End - the Real Being.
This does not harm - your faith in Master Jesus - should just clarify some things ....
Fare thee well.
And another very important issue - is that love - is not spoken about - in spirituality (India) - it is against - highest principles in etiquette.
This is so frustrating... Christianity as unique... Clearly you don't understand Vedic traditions at all. You're barely scratching the surface here and struggling to understand what I've found stated with utmost clarity in vedantic traditions. Typical of westerners thinking they know better. Wolfgang even separates the creator from his creation @44:45 god is not seperate from the cosmos. What the icons (which are beautiful) point to, Vedic traditions explain with complete clarity.
I think the idea was that the Vedic traditions prioritise the transcendence of God and discard the immanence. I am not knowledgable enough to tell but I also suspect that this is not accurate. In Islam as well, as in the work of Ibn Al Arabi, the immanence is not discarded in the least.
I don’t think he is discarding the Vedic tradition, but says that it is a subset of Christian Truth.
God isn't separate in Christianity either..... he is both the grounding of all being and entered creation himself.
@@charliecampbell6851 The Heavenly King is "everywhere present and filling all things" as the Orthodox Church prays.
I agree, "God" and creation cannot be separated!
The art was beautiful. Your words were beautiful. The cosmos and god were not so. God is outside the cosmos. God is not material. The cosmos is. the relationship between the two (or three) depending... doesn't work. Plus it leaves out the connection, which I assume is Jesus. Unfortunately, religion is man-made art form like your images, words, and demeanors. Escher shows how anything can happen in art. Whitman and Joyce could weave the word like some mythical Greek goddess at her loom. Shakespeare could create the words then put it on a stage for the common man to glean. And yet for us he is a genius. God didn't write the bible. Man has limitations. God has limitations. There are no ghosts. Jesus wasn't resurrected.
Have you ever seen people walk past a beautiful painting or someone sleep through a classic musical piece. Or, have you ever seen a person walk over the axis Mundo of any civilization, as if meant nothing at all. Or have you ever seen someone blaspheme anything you consider holy? Well, you do it every day. You do it to every moment of the past and present and future to. I believe Black Elk said something like anywhere you are is the center of all.