Great video, ArthurThis is why I embrace the alternative community, for mind-blowing, norm-crushing, insights such as this.
I do have myself down as a materialist because this is how i perceive the world - i.e. through objects large and small which i can manipulate with my hands. However, with our advances in measuring tools and observation techniques it is amazing to see how easily that view can be stripped back. My real interest lies at the veil between what i call outer appearance and inner occurrence - that is, what philosophers would call the representation of the object as my senses perceive it and what it actually exists to be in itself. Now i believe this barrier can never be crossed as i always ask the question, 'what validates perception?' But one of the things that has always bugged me is where does matter come from? I assumed that with our advances in the aforementioned observation techniques we'd find it at the subatomic level in leptons and quarks (and possible further derivatives). But that it rests on nothingness, and could even be a construct of our own mind… What really stops me from jumping on board is how this nothingness is perceived. Perhaps there exists something but we simply do not have the sense organs to perceive it. Another quandary - isn't the role of science normally to disprove established theories through measurable and repeatable experimentation? What happens when the stuff we want to measure simply isn't there? Would this place science itself in a crisis? Great stuff regardless.
All the best,
Luke
I feel a little self conscious about saying this given the generally uplifting nature of this conversation, but I feel the need to point out that this community would seem to be fairly well off, that is to say warm, dry and well fed. I'm enjoying the discussion, but I feel that it is, perhaps, an indulgence. The trend seems to be that more people rather then less are going to be hungry, thirsty, too hot, too cold, angry, grieving, sick, injured and having guns stuck in there faces. I have this nagging feeling that the high watermark for this cycle of human enlightenment may have passed with the sixties and that trying to raise humanity to a higher level of being may have to be set aside for a couple of centuries as we weather the transition to what ever comes after peak carbon and acute climate change. I'm not saying that it isn't worth trying, I'm just saying don't be disappointed if the general population is distracted by more pressing matters.
John G.
We seem to always trace causality from the material to ethereal. If there is a mental disorder and chemical imbalance in the brain, the automatic assumption is that the chemical imbalance has caused the mental disorder, not vice versa. We see human suffering and the automatic assumption is that the cause is material. Evidence, even "scientific evidence" is pointing in another direction. Yet we know that there is enough food in the world to feed everybody, most of the diseases that afflict large portions of the population have simple known cures that are relatively inexpensive to administer.
Here we live the wealthiest country in the world, yet have the highest incarceration rates in the world, highest levels illicit drug use, very high, if not the highest levels of antidepressant drug use. If wealth is the answer to happiness, to a fulfilled life, why are we so heavily medicated? Why are the "holidays" a time when there is so much emotional stress and high suicide rates? Are we enjoying Black Friday today. Yet we seem unable to escape the standard cultural narrative even though if we take the time to scratch the surface just a little an entirely different story starts to emerge.
Power and control of the natural environment, the promise of the current cultural story have not delivered the results that we have promised ourselves, they seem to have delivered their opposite. Yet we continue to persist to the same direction. All we need is better technology, a new energy source, more control, more power. The answer is over the next hill, around the corner, in a laboratory somewhere out there. Its in this government, this agency or that person, if only they would change then my life would be better. Yet the answer never seems to emerge, only a whole new set of unforeseen problems. We say that all we need is more time, yet through time the problems have stayed the same, only scale seems to have changed.
So many symbols. You don't need to read the article, just the picture alone is what's reflected in the mirror. Ouch!
Chris and Treebeard, everything you said totally resonated with me. And I thank you for creating a new world, the one away from ego-driven fears and struggle for survival, and running from ourselves through TV, Prozac, printing money and plastic operations… towards the world of authenticity, love, divinity inside and letting things happen, instead of making them happen.
A year ago, I was crying on the kitchen floor, and that marked the end of the old paradigm for me, a Shift moment, if you will. Today I am happier than ever, and yes, it is through releasing and renouncing attachments, and going out of my mind, through emotions all the way to consciousness…It is certainly worth it, there is bliss on the other side!
We are probably going to go through some self-destruction first, and then we must live in the world of love, individually and globally. And people who are fighting for a cheaper TV at Tesco on Black Friday, are just not going to make it.
I see the several recommendations for Amit Gorwami's books, but as one who has not really started down the learnings and thought patterns that Chris and Andrew outline here, I'm curious for any recommendations of where to find out more.
I listened to the podcast twice straight away, and found myself wishing i could listen to the conversation for much longer than 1 hour. So I'm curious if there are recommended books that detail more of ways to bring this mode of thinking into my life, or lets me dig deeper. Much of the changes in mindset I hear Chris speaking of are ones i need to make in how I think about things, and reducing internal anxiousness and avoid clinging to the materialistic values of the society around me.
Thanks for a fantastic podcast Chris and Andrew. It's kind of dipping a toe in discussion of the forbidden faith/religious realm, but but done in a way that I think is compatible with nearly all faiths, and moves people towards a healthier, more settled mindset regardless of existing/future personal faith or beliefs. really great stuff.
Dgilmart
I've recommended Parabola magazine http://www.parabola.org/ in the past. I've had a subscription for the past seven years, and I look forward to every issue. It's a wonderful magazine that publishes articles (past and present) from people of all spiritual paths and faiths (just a few…Sufi, Buddhism, Jewish, Christian, Islam, Gurdjieff, Jung, Taoism, etc.) Each quarterly issue has a theme. The most recent is "Goddness." There is an article "Resurrection; Finding hope in the heart of darkness" by Ramgiri Braun which directly relates to Chris and Andrew's discussion. Parabola also has a "new publications" section in the back. There are so many books out there to choose from, so I find it helps me sift through them. More importantly, it has helped me find new ways to constructively participate in my community.
Sorry!
Oddly enough, Chris mentioned him in the pod cast, and I had one his books (The Power of Now) sitting on my night stand for a couple of months that someone had given me, but I had just cracked the cover. Chris's reference and one of the poster's comments motivated me to read it through. I am just finishing it up now, it's very easy and fast read. Very similar the works of J Krishnamurti whose works which were in a very similar vein who was popular back in the 60's and 70's, but I think that Tolle is very much more accessible. I can very much second that recommendation.
I do hesitate to make recommendations in the blind as it were, because every ones temperament and approach to these matters is so different. What I loved about my own self taught education in these matters was the process of discovery, where one author would mention another writer or philosophical approach and off I would go. Each effort was guided by what my particular needs were in that moment, which may or may not be of interest or appropriate for others. The kind of self discovery that withers under our typical educational system. Open your eyes and heart, stick your nose out the door and off you go.
Hello,
I have personally read many books etc, but I think the point is to go below the cognitive level, all the information is no good if we don't change the subconscious patterns. I meditated many years and have done many things, but what works best for me is releasing, the release technique… and it is basically about what Chris said at the end: renouncing and giving up all the emotions, info, patterns and crap we had been fed throughout our lives… letting go and surrendering, and not acquring and constantly ''becoming better". We are already god/divine, we don't have to come to it, but rather give up all the obstacles to it. Then we can live with ease and things just happen.
Fantastic podcast. This knowledge is returning to our cultural foreground, and it is wonderful to continue crossing its path. Similarly, I have published on the use of the I-Ching, a device of self-knowing which predates most religion: The Book of Gardens, A Lover's Manual for Planet Earth.
Thank you Treebeard & Chris!
Treebeard and Chris truly opened up a most worthwhile conversation. I have frequently thought that all we were about was to protect/preserve our little wealth and possibly become more enlightened about the LIMITS to growth ( a la Club of Rome in the past), and even start on the road to being more sustainable in our daily lives/environment. Information SCOUTS, indeed! But so much has been said/thought about GOLD and SILVER, I frequently felt like a modern day MATERIALIST–always searching for the bottom and BUYING MORE, more, and more. Fortunately the geopolitical/eco sections intrigued some but, for me, it is the inner creativity, the inner journey, the last frontier of discovery, that turns me on. So, I mention: Spiritual (not religious) sustainability, even posting thoughts about the Ultimate preparation: DEATH (not one comment about THAT!)
Again I ask: Is the ground of being/meaning the materialist paradigm, out of which consciousness arises; OR, the reverse, is consciousness is the ground/meaning out of which matter DESCENDS. One possible solution: Descending causality creates the material and then the material ASCENDing causality terminates in transformation at the Source. There are innumerable books that might be of use; here are a few.
The Visionary Window: A Quantum Physicists' Guide to Enlightenment, Amit Goswami. The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe. The Source Field Investigations, by David Wilcock. Physics of the Soul; and, of course, The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material world, both by Goswami. Wherever You Go, There Your Are, Jon Kabat-Zinn. The Book of Secrets: 112 Keys to the Mystery Within, by Osho (1131 pages of unending types of meditation). The Third Jesus: The Christ We Cannot Ignore, by Deepak Chopra
Can we have a NEW consciousness-based science that incorporates mainstream traditional materialistic-based science. Where does mysticism fit in?
At the risk of "ego-enhancement," I offer many more suggested books in the footnotes of www.AwarenessCenters.com by clicking onto "Spiritual Poetry." I firmly believe that our Western tradition strongly needs to be balanced by the EASTERN viewpoints, especially such as Vedanta, the Chinese Zen masters, Taoistic sages, Indian Hindu thought/experiences, Sufi poetry, etc.
And, YES, I still want to know how to invest in oil and copper.
Sorry to ramble–but I just love all this!! Zen
mthorn, thanks for a clear and uncompromising exposition of a dogmatic materialist position.To begin with, it is just that – not Eternal Revealed Truth, but a particular interpretation of a number of scientific theories that are themselves continually evolving. For example, as Chris pointed out, when you look closely at "material", what you find is energy. So, perhaps, materialism would better be called "energism"? But that would imply a rather different view of the universe – the evolving dance of energetic systems.
Stepping back a bit, and looking at Earth, we see not random chemical interactions, but 4 billion years of increasing complexity and diversity. Ecology and evolution together paint a picture of the varied and complex dynamic patterns that have created, and are still creating, the drama of life. Are you really prepared, as a complex dynamic pattern yourself, to say that these patterns are less real than what you see as a "short-term collection of chemical elements"? If so, what is it that's making these assertions?
To me, reductionism, and the simplistic materialism that results from its overuse, violate the basic driving force of the scientific way of seeing (including such "elements" as curiosity, wonder, openness, humility). It's science denying itself – the ultimate reduction.
mthorn, thanks for expressing the dual opposite of your previous exposition.
One basis is an understanding that we are fundamentally social creatures; we evolved from social primates, and carry that legacy with us. (From a reading of your post, I'm not sure you'd accept that statement.) A long human history has created patterns of behavior (i.e., moral codes) that enable and promote viable societies. One major point in the article was the value of enlarging our sense of self, going beyond the "immediate ego", to encompass the society of which we're a part. (I think that's a good part of the love Andrew talked about.) It gets more complex than that, of course, but then so does morality based on "God's Commandments"; who gets to decide how to interpret them?
If there is no God who establishes an objective standard of moral behavior, on what moral basis can we reassure ourselves that the atrocities committed by humans are morally wrong? Who decides what is good and what is evil? If each individual can decide for himself, then I don't have to follow your rules and you don't have to follow mine
Wildlife Tracker, thanks for that! A lovely insight.By the way, one of my favorite books to reread now and then is Paul Rezendes' "The Wild Within". I'm guessing that you know the book, or the author, or both.
Replying to:
Hmm. I'd say that religion is a topic that might be well worth discussing in certain contexts. For comparison, consider the following statement: the rules prohibit all discussion that is specifically scientific (as opposed to merely and generally curious about the nature of reality) in character. Not likely to be adopted, right? Quoting the relevant part of the rules:
[Moderator's note: Unless I am mistaken, the forums rules prohibit proselytizing; in fact they prohibit all discussion that is specifically religious (as opposed to merely and generally spiritual) in character. Unless I am further mistaken, in order to become a member one must first certify that one has read and understood these rules.]
OFF-LIMIT TOPICS Regretfully, through much trial and even more error, we've determined that there are several topics that seem to escape the ability of otherwise careful and considerate people to discuss pleasantly in an online forum: Religion Abortion These topics are not allowed, and any threads or posts containing them will be promptly removed. We wish it could be otherwise, but our hard-earned experience is that these topics are not worth the trouble. We appreciate your understanding.I understand the sentiment, and I'm in complete agreement with it. However, I'd like to avoid throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. For example, I read the interview as definitely discussing parts of Buddhism and Hinduism; a literal reading of the rules might lead to this whole article and comment threads being removed. Further, I read the general tone of the comments here as casting doubt on the proposition that "there are several topics that seem to escape the ability of otherwise careful and considerate people to discuss pleasantly in an online forum". With one exception, which got a gentle nudge from the moderator, I'd say that the comments on religion have been quite civil. Quite a pleasant contrast to the mudslinging on the Net between Angry Atheists and Furious Fundamentalists. I also applaud the moderator's decision to avoid drastic action. [Moderator's note: Attention all users, please do not respond to this comment on this thread. To avoid derailing the conversation here, it probably should have been created in a separate thread in the "Site Feedback and Comments" folder. We will move it as soon as this can be arranged; if you have a comment, please save it until then.]
Given the volume of comments here, perhaps it'd be worth creating a group for the topic; maybe "Internal Preparation"?
All,
As thoughtful people are prone to do, we return again to the big questions. We can't help it - this consciousness is what separates us from the beasts. Every time we get here, we have to throttle the discussion so that others are not offended. Tolerance, it seems, is a selective virtue.
The thoughtful comments of the discussion are interesting in the variety of the approaches to understanding the big questions in life. So much variety - who can know the truth - or declare with confidence, knowledge that comports with reality? Is there one Truth? Can we know it? Is there one answer to who we are, where we came from, and what we are doing here? What is the secret to happiness, fulfillment, purpose, inner peace, self control, and enjoying life?
In secular culture - ignorance is enlightenment. To claim to know the Truth is evidence of a closed mind, dogmatic ignorance, anti-intellectualism, or madness. The enlightened among us make a virtue out of being unable to declare Truth. A pity really. . .It makes me sad because the Truth is evident - and the desire for Truth is hardwired into our DNA. We want Knowledge - but rebel against what we can plainly see because we fear accountability.
Is it offensive to claim the following?
I know exactly who I am - and I am not proud of it, but I understand myself and everyone else.
I know why I am here, and my purpose. This drives my choices in life and provides direction.
I know (with certainty) the difference between right and wrong; good and bad; and how I should live. Much of this is ingrained - but some must be learned. I don't struggle with moral or ethical dilemmas. My struggle is internal as my nature fights against the Truth.
My worldview doesn't change when tragedy strikes, illness overwhelms me, or great things happen in my life. Joy is not dependent on circumstances.
I sleep as soundly in a foxhole as I do in my own bed. I do not worry about tomorrow.
I understand the source of evil and know how the story of mankind ends. Yes, I claim to know the future of humanity.
I do not fear death - because I have never met a mortal man.
Some of you will view these claims as foolishness - and some will find these claims offensive.
Interestingly - I am not allowed to share these specifics - but I agreed to these rules - and so I will honor the rules.
This knowledge is ancient and available to anyone who will receive it. All are free to reject these Truth claims. Why then are they so controversial? I would love to hear your questions and comments.
Rector
Rector-It sounds like you've got everything locked up. That has to allow a person to sleep easy at night, knowing all that stuff for certain.
My favorite Einstein quote is, "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."
Which brings me to Don Rumsfeld, that fantastic philosopher-cum-SecDef under Bush II, and his unbelievably useful observation he gave of life while successfully dodging a question at a press conference about Iraq:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk
I've always liked the unknown-unknowns. Not as a project manager, mind you - the unknown-unknowns is always the reasons your schedule slips, but they do bring spice to life, don't they?
Rector, I'd ask you what your unknown-unknowns are, but of course you wouldn't know what they were, would you? 
has been so much fun, i almost forgot to milch me coos.