Sure, it's appealing, but it's also delusional. It sets the stage for post-humanism, which demotes human existence to the level of nature. In relation to the risk of shark attack, an academic surfer said that she felt a profound bond with nature, sensing that she was also part of the food chain. I suggested that this was very self indulgent, given that shark attacks are a serious problem, causing death and lifelong injury, not to mention psychological trauma. She advocated for protecting sharks at all cost, a view that is very popular these days.
@@surfism It neither demotes humans to the level of nature, nor promotes nature to the level of humans. In fact neither make any sense. Humans are a part of nature. It would be like demoting rectangles to the level of polygons.
According to Karl Rahner, author of Foundations of Christian Faith, "The notion that the absolute ground of all reality is something like an unconscious and impersonal cosmic law, an unconscious and impersonal structure of things, a source which empties itself out without possessing itself, which gives rise to spirit and freedom without itself being spirit and freedom, the notion of a blind, primordial ground of the world which cannot look at us even if it wants to, all of this is a notion whose model is taken from the context of the impersonal world of things. It does not come from that source in which a basic and original transcendental experience is really rooted: namely, from a finite spirit’s subjective and free experience of itself. In its very constitution a finite spirit always experiences itself as having its origins in another and as being given to itself from another-from another, therefore, which it cannot misinterpret as an impersonal principle.” p.75.
I present a counter argument titled "The spatiotemporal source of our confusion", which includes references, if you're interested. Here it is: There is a growing movement of intellectuals pushing the belief that consciousness is all around us. It’s not a new idea, but in the context of the culture war, its popularity appears to be driven by the progressive agenda. Most academics are leftists, anyway. But, others are adjusting their message to suit the progressive agenda, because it attracts the attention they crave. I can’t deny that consciousness could be the fabric of the universe, and that such a belief could dissolve the psychological barriers that divide us-not just from each other, but from nature, too. It seems like an admirable project. However, the problem with this idea is that our experience of transcendence defies the notion of extension. The profound sense of oneness is not a connection with space (seemingly vast), but no space at all, just the present moment. The profound sense of being “intimately interwoven with everything and everyone the mind senses” is an illusion. Transcendence doesn’t just dissolve the boundary of the body, but space itself-the mind’s temporal connection overriding spatial separation. The sense of spatial connection is an afterthought-the ‘narrative interpreter‘ in the left-brain trying to make sense of undirected awareness. The illusion of spatial connection leads to the delusion of consciousness itself being everywhere. The fact that we share time together doesn’t mean that we also share space. It’s a nice thought, but space is, by its very nature, divisible. This is an important distinction, because time is what connects us with our ancestral spirit. So, I am afraid this vital connection will be lost if we subscribe to a spatial characterisation of consciousness. Could it be that the root of the culture war is a dispute over the status of consciousness being either spatial or temporal? The consequence is profound for the individual, because the spatial option dilutes the individual into the collective, while the temporal option implies that the individual is independent of the group. Theoretically, these are two ends of a continuum that we are condemned to navigate, both as individuals and society. The ancestral spirit has a profound stabilising effect on the individual. Many are oblivious to its existence, some identifying with material possessions instead, while others ‘find themselves’ in causes that disguise their resentment. On the other hand, the ancestral connection has been rendered in so many ways that the immaterial nature of being gets lost in the narrative. But, it’s really just an echo of our ancestors’ lives: the love they felt for each other, their animals, and the places they lived.
This is fascinating. I love the idea that we and all matter are part of one big congregation.
Sure, it's appealing, but it's also delusional. It sets the stage for post-humanism, which demotes human existence to the level of nature. In relation to the risk of shark attack, an academic surfer said that she felt a profound bond with nature, sensing that she was also part of the food chain. I suggested that this was very self indulgent, given that shark attacks are a serious problem, causing death and lifelong injury, not to mention psychological trauma. She advocated for protecting sharks at all cost, a view that is very popular these days.
@@surfism It neither demotes humans to the level of nature, nor promotes nature to the level of humans. In fact neither make any sense. Humans are a part of nature. It would be like demoting rectangles to the level of polygons.
I was waiting for you to explain Panentheism entirely compatible with Christianity. Surprised you didn't. Excellent presentation.
Theology has been the bane of humanity and retranslated ancient knowledge and texts to be a supernatural myth that is unreachable for most people.
While ive always found Panpsychism and Cosmopsychism interesting
Can it explain angels/demons and ghosts?
According to Karl Rahner, author of Foundations of Christian Faith, "The notion that the absolute ground of all reality is something like an unconscious and impersonal cosmic law, an unconscious and impersonal structure of things, a source which empties itself out without possessing itself, which gives rise to spirit and freedom without itself being spirit and freedom, the notion of a blind, primordial ground of the world which cannot look at us even if it wants to, all of this is a notion whose model is taken from the context of the impersonal world of things. It does not come from that source in which a basic and original transcendental experience is really rooted: namely, from a finite spirit’s subjective and free experience of itself. In its very constitution a finite spirit always experiences itself as having its origins in another and as being given to itself from another-from another, therefore, which it cannot misinterpret as an impersonal principle.” p.75.
I present a counter argument titled "The spatiotemporal source of our confusion", which includes references, if you're interested. Here it is:
There is a growing movement of intellectuals pushing the belief that consciousness is all around us. It’s not a new idea, but in the context of the culture war, its popularity appears to be driven by the progressive agenda. Most academics are leftists, anyway. But, others are adjusting their message to suit the progressive agenda, because it attracts the attention they crave.
I can’t deny that consciousness could be the fabric of the universe, and that such a belief could dissolve the psychological barriers that divide us-not just from each other, but from nature, too. It seems like an admirable project. However, the problem with this idea is that our experience of transcendence defies the notion of extension. The profound sense of oneness is not a connection with space (seemingly vast), but no space at all, just the present moment.
The profound sense of being “intimately interwoven with everything and everyone the mind senses” is an illusion. Transcendence doesn’t just dissolve the boundary of the body, but space itself-the mind’s temporal connection overriding spatial separation. The sense of spatial connection is an afterthought-the ‘narrative interpreter‘ in the left-brain trying to make sense of undirected awareness.
The illusion of spatial connection leads to the delusion of consciousness itself being everywhere. The fact that we share time together doesn’t mean that we also share space. It’s a nice thought, but space is, by its very nature, divisible. This is an important distinction, because time is what connects us with our ancestral spirit. So, I am afraid this vital connection will be lost if we subscribe to a spatial characterisation of consciousness.
Could it be that the root of the culture war is a dispute over the status of consciousness being either spatial or temporal? The consequence is profound for the individual, because the spatial option dilutes the individual into the collective, while the temporal option implies that the individual is independent of the group. Theoretically, these are two ends of a continuum that we are condemned to navigate, both as individuals and society.
The ancestral spirit has a profound stabilising effect on the individual. Many are oblivious to its existence, some identifying with material possessions instead, while others ‘find themselves’ in causes that disguise their resentment. On the other hand, the ancestral connection has been rendered in so many ways that the immaterial nature of being gets lost in the narrative. But, it’s really just an echo of our ancestors’ lives: the love they felt for each other, their animals, and the places they lived.
The ideas presented in the video were more interesting and more compelling from my perspective.