Thanks for this interesting, illuminating and humorous interview. I got a lot out of it. Good to have a new writer to check out. Peace!

You have become one of my favorite podcasts ❤much gratitude 🙏

wow, thanks steve! amazing!

Beautiful conversation!

Such an important video, this is for me. Thanks for doing this. I'm gonna make some actionable steps training my brain muscle.

The genuine “supernatural” is simply higher levels of natural phenomena that seems “supernatural” because most of humanity is not aware of the Eternal. Amazing interview. Definitely going to work on my concentration skills.

This is a truly excellent interview. Many thanks.

Thanks for doing this interview with the endlessly fascinating Steve Donoghue! 😊 I love it so far, though I'm only about an hour in; I'll finish it later after I unironically turn off social media for a bit in order to focus on some reading! ☺️ However I have a few observations and reflections for now: * I've heard Steve say one of his favorite books is The Jungle Book. I wonder if one reason for this (apart from Kipling's own underrated literary genius) is because a good chunk of Steve's earliest years were spent growing up in the company of non-human animals. * Steve says the animals he grew up with could notice all sorts of realities except for the reality of the transcendent (i.e. "God" or whatever we wish to call it). Steve notes only humans notice the transcrendent. Or the transcendent is only noticed when animals don "human clothes" so to speak. One must enter into the human realm in order to think there is such a thing as the transcendent. Thus Steve concludes there is no such transcendent reality or God or similar, for only humans believe there is, but not animals. I think that more or less summarizes what Steve said. * If so, I think that's jumping to conclusions. First, is it even possible to truly and fully know what it's like to think like an animal thinks, to feel what it feels, to enter into it's thought life, assuming it has a thought life? How certain are we about our anthropomorphic interpretations of what animals think and feel? See the philosopher Thomas Nagel's famous paper "What is it like to be a bat?" If we don't and can't know what it's like to be an animal, then why assume an animal lacks awareness of the transcendent or God or the like? How would we even know? * Nevertheless let's suppose animals do indeed lack this awareness of the transcendent. If so, why assume that the lack of this awareness in animals necessarily implies the transcendent does not exist? After all, I presume most if not all animals lack awareness that subatomic particles like quarks exist. If so, how does that necessarily imply quarks do not exist? Rather at most it simply means animals are unaware quarks exist. But it doesn't mean quarks do not exist. We can't logically conclude quarks do not exist simply because animals or even humans (such as all the humans before quarks were discovered or modern humans from pre-scientifically educated cultures) are unaware quarks exist. * Steve asks to "show" him the transcendent or God if it exists. If by "show" Steve means physically showing him, such as showing in such a way that can be detected by our senses or a sensory apparatus like a microscope or telescope or other scientifically sophisticated instrument, then that assumes the transcendent is something which can be seen or detected through these means. Yet why assume this is the case? For example, show me an abstract object such as the number 2. I don't mean write down on a piece of paper or type out on a screen the number 2. These would really just be pencil markings or digital bits and bytes which represent the number 2, but they would not be the actual number 2. So I mean the actual concept of the number 2. Where does this concept of the number 2 exist? Does it exist? My point is not to debate whether or not it exists, but my point is if it exists, it can't be detectable through purely physical or sensory means. * Another good example is the human mind or consciousness. Show me the human mind or consciousness. Show me hownit exists. This is independent of whether or not the mind emerges from the brain. Even if the mind does emerge from the brain, then physically speaking where is the mind? Please show it to me. Prima facie, that's not possible because the human mind is not an object which has spatial properties. The physical brain has spatial properties, but the mind or consciousness does not. The mind is spaceless in that it has no physical dimensions like length or width or mass. Sure, we can detect the mind indirectly through its functions and dysfunctions. Such as when one takes drugs and enters into a state of altered consciousness, since an altered consciousness presumes there is a consciousness which can be altered. Or such as when one does a brain scan through a CT or MRI and we can see, say, a lack of blood flow to the frontal cortex affects the person's personality in this or that way. Or such as through case studies like Phineas Gage. However, these are indirect analogues or correlations to the actual mind, not the mind or consciousness itself. The mind or consciousness can't be directly seen, touched, tasted, prodded, smelled, and so on, like the physical brain can be. So, my point is, if the human mind or consciousness can't be shown, but it is at least reasonable to believe the human mind or consciousness exists (e.g. "cogito, ergo sum" after all), then why isn't it possible evidence or proof of the transcendent is more akin to evidence or proof for the human mind than to evidence or proof for physical objects like the physical brain?

@augustineriley5582

19 күн бұрын

pattube - Excellent points and on board with what you feel and wrote.

@imhim9989

18 күн бұрын

He meant animals in the sense of babies and toddlers who haven’t been indoctrinated into a religion or mode of thinking yet. We are animals.

Very nice interview.

Wonderful interview, I learnt a lot.

If criticism has a value it is to facilitate a deeper understanding. The strength of Western philosophy is its ability to analyse concepts and plumb the depths of the meanings of words, but that is also its weakness. Conversely, the strength of Eastern mysticism is its ability to abide in a state which is prior to the formation of concepts which, likewise, is its weakness. The purpose of words is to try to convey to another the perceptions which originally occur in the wordless state of raw experience. I would have liked it if he had been asked what he meant by transcendence. It is a word he uses frequently. If he denies there is any validity to be ascribed to an unseen world then what is his understanding of transcendence?

Ep 247a - A Life in Slough?

😃😃😃🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾

Great discussion! He's not wrong, but I would suggest creative repetition rather than rote repetition. It's perhaps splitting hairs, but a hill worth dying on for people who can't stand rote.

@MadmanGoneMad2012

Ай бұрын

"Creative repetition" had me smirking i had to google it before i could laugh. 😂 Never could you find larger swaths of pretentious crowd than in the bookish world.

has steve ever been married? does he have children?

Steve is 22.

Kinda sad that he has read and read and read yet failed to find transcendence or wisdom. It is like going through volumes and volumes and volumes yet failing to get their unchanging essence. Sorry to say but it was all a waste.