How do you find transcendence? Leave your thoughts in the comments below! To watch the full talk, head to iai.tv/video/finding-transcendence-in-a-secular-world-rupert-sheldrake?KZread&

@ericfarina3935

Жыл бұрын

All events are perceived in terms of cause and effect. For far too long it has been taken for granted that the way that we describe the ways that we perceive things, is truly the way that things actually are. For example: "I get in my car. I drive to work." If you really are, as we say, "getting in your car" and "driving to work" then you have spoken in a manner that is indicative, representative, and/or symbolic of your actions as experienced. However, the words chosen (however represented) will always exist independant of the *reality experienced*. The thing is independent, insofar as it can occur in all possible circumstances, but this form of independence is a form of connection with the underlying objective reality, a form of dependence. It is not possible to transcend or even equal experienced reality by means of described reality. It is inevitable that any empirically described reality by means of observation will inherit the shortcomings attributable to [AND experienced via] the means of observation *experienced* AND *described* (the experience experienced is really experienced, and the experience described is really described. This should not require emphasis, and yet it does. The implications are apparent). Another way of expressing this in terms of observed human experience, would be to say "no thing observed can equal or exceed the speed of light in a vacuum". I.e., "the limitations of observation are experienced by means of observation, as the limits of description are experienced by means of description. When observation be dependent upon light, so be it limited by means of the experience of light. The reality experienced can not equal or transcend the objective reality underlying all experience. The reality described can not equal or transcend the reality experienced, nor can it surpass the means (and accordant limitations) of description via experience by way of objective reality. This insight does not belong to any one person, and any claim that it does would defy the logical understanding of the insight itself. It would be foolish to deny the reality underlying what is here written (in other words, to embrace "nihilism" which can be described as the belief that action is inconsequential and existence is meaningless and futile). If action is "pre-determined" then we are all automatons, and no action is our own. Yet no intelligible or coherent Universe could emerge from pure chaos (pure chaos being the exact opposite of pure coherence, any perfectly chaotic Universe would by definition be Eternally (here meaning: for all of space and time as one) incompatible with intelligence/ coherence). By definition, a perfectly incoherent Universe would be completely unintelligible, and a perfectly symmetrical Universe (in terms of space and time) would transcend the intrinsic limitations of any individual experience (which is necessarily asymmetrical in terms of space relative to time). If you suppose an infinite Universe equal parts space and time, any observation limited in terms of space and time will experience limitations in accordance with the observation experienced. In other words, an observer experiences a limited version of spacetime as they encounter asymmetry in observed spacetime. Observed spacetime is asymmetrical relative to the objectively real spacetime, which is really perfectly symmetrical.

I really connect with meditation (I started in 2007) and been doing fasting for the last 5 years. Because of these practices, my life is so much better now, both physically and spiritually.

I love the idea of sports or sports events being a spiritual experience. I grew up in College Station, TX, home of Texas A&M. If you have ever been there it is full of ritual and tradition. I remember as a kid the A&M bonfire was as big an event at Christmas. The ones in the late 70' and early 80's were HUGE!!

Rupert Sheldrake looks much younger than his almost 81 years. Fasting, meditation, and other spiritual practices seem to have worked for him.

Thank you for this video! Ordered a book by professor Sheldrake to learn more about his ideas!

Truth and facts are not enough to make humans connect so they create myths and conspiracies to create a communities.

*True spirituality comes only from the One and Unique God.*

Rupert has many inspiring ideas but support for the established church is not something I see eye to eye with him over. Still at 80 he is wonderful.

@thstroyur

Жыл бұрын

Although a self-professed Christian (Anglican, I believe), orthodox Christians also don't "see eye to eye" with him, either - making this purported "support for the established church" rather specious. Same difference with Freeman Dyson: he attended church services and so on, but by his own admission he only cared about the communal bonding - not unlike someone attending a sports event. Sheldrake is still only a secular, and although he (correctly) pines for the spiritual, his New Agey views only serve to distract and sabotage his quest for the transcedental.

@ericfarina3935

Жыл бұрын

What you call "support for the established church", I call, "an open window for constructive dialogue".

@thstroyur

Жыл бұрын

@@ericfarina3935 Yeah, sure - because we sure as Hell can't have ecumenism in the Church - according, of course, to the critics of the Church, who're always very interested in "constructive dialogue", even as they smear it... 🙄

@ericfarina3935

Жыл бұрын

@@thstroyur Constructive dialogue is always available to the open-minded and thoughtful. I understand your comment, but that is neither here nor there. Neither critics of the "church" nor its members should be painted with so broad a brush.

@thstroyur

Жыл бұрын

@@ericfarina3935 And as such, your previous comment looses its ground.

Fun information. Posting it as a discussion of "spirituality" misses the focus of his various points as "needs" of the human condition. His references to how the "needs" are expressed in different religions didn't really claim the "needs" as spiritual. I suggest his implications pointed to a more material explanation of how the "spiritual practices...evolved" as humans interacted with their material world and human needs. Enjoyed his info and sense of humor, but do not think his general presentation illuminated any spiritual elements of human existence.

The more the western man advances technologically, the less it seems to know about its own nature. I believe wisdom and technical knowledge are somehow inversely proportional

@vecumex9466

Жыл бұрын

@@bro83748And that is a great slogan!

@marcodallolio9746

Жыл бұрын

@@bro83748 Is dogma wisdom? I would say the opposite

@marcodallolio9746

Жыл бұрын

@@bro83748 dogma is rigid and absolute, true wisdom knows its limited and impermanent nature. Being old doesnt guarantee wisdom, but it can make you rigid, and convince you you already know, since you've seen it all before. Which I'd say is the opposite of wisdom

Scientific theory as a lense for transcendental thought has been forgotten, because the primary theories have been taught through an irrational hierarchy lead by thoughtless pedants. I speak of formal education. What we call science has no basis if not for what we call philosophy. "Science" is an extension of "philosophy", and inherits corresponding limitations relative to the underlying objective reality.

@vecumex9466

Жыл бұрын

Reductionism is dying!

@ericfarina3935

Жыл бұрын

@@vecumex9466 Indeed.

Secular world does not exist. There are still political parties which do not differ from religions in principle.

@edzejandehaan9265

Жыл бұрын

Don't know if you regard yourself as a religious person, but I always found it peculiar how many "conventionally" religious people feel the need to call everybody religious. Usually, by stretching the definition of the term to the point it loses all meaning....

@matterasmachine

Жыл бұрын

@@edzejandehaan9265 you just define it stupid way. And now want me to be religious and expect that I call everybody religious. What is religious? Believing? You think you don't believe? You don't believe in democracy for example?

@edzejandehaan9265

Жыл бұрын

@@matterasmachineAh, I see what I'm dealing with here. Kindly forget I was so silly as to reply to your comment. Goodbye.

@matterasmachine

Жыл бұрын

@@edzejandehaan9265 I See that you were searching for Cristian to say him how stupid are christians. So you found yourself.

@ezbody

Жыл бұрын

Secular doesn't mean not religious. It just means you set your religion aside when dealing with someone who isn't part of your religious tribe. In other words, two people with different religious beliefs can be secular when doing business with each other, or for any other reason. We do it all the time.

Sports are a physical practice sr. Don't you know that obvious difference

This are not spiritual practices, this man don't know what is spirituality