Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!

[Astra052]

Early in the introduction here he says himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup will be having a 3 way disucssion soon. Possibly 4 way if Vervaeke is able to make it. Exciting! The rest of the interview is with physicist Avi Loeb and questions about metaphysics are asked.

[AshvinP]

Early in the introduction here he says himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup will be having a 3 way disucssion soon. Possibly 4 way if Vervaeke is able to make it. Exciting! The rest of the interview is with physicist Avi Loeb and questions about metaphysics are asked.

Very nice. JP just invited Vervaeke to a discussion too. I suggested they both also get Mark Vernon involved (to discuss Owen Barfield's thoughts on consciousness and Christianity), as Vervaeke and Vernon have already talked at length. Perhaps TOE will link all of these guys together, fingers crossed.

[AshvinP]

[Soul_of_Shu]

Given this 'dialogos' with John Vervaeke, it should be interesting to discover what he brings to the upcoming conversation ...

[Soul_of_Shu]

Just a reminder that this one goes today, and may be intriguing, although not sure that Hoffman is still involved ...

[Astra052]

Just a reminder that this one goes today, and may be intriguing, although not sure that Hoffman is still involved ...

Hoffman couldn't make it so they have another one scheduled with him involved at a later date.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Wow ... Vervaeke in dialogos with Kastrup, IMO, was a brilliant metaphysical journey, and even if JV was not fully committed to getting onboard BK's train of ideas into the primacy of consciousness, it surely gave him more ideas to consider, and may by extension send some ripples though the sea of alter-mode minds at U of T, which can play some role rethinking the problematic paradigmatic premise of materialism, with its attendant meaning crisis. Also will hopefully create some logical link to similar conversations with the two JPs.

[AshvinP]

Wow ... Vervaeke in dialogos with Kastrup, IMO, was a brilliant metaphysical journey, and even if JV was not fully committed to getting onboard BK's train of ideas into the primacy of consciousness, it surely gave him more ideas to consider, and may by extension send some ripples though the sea of alter-mode minds at U of T, which can play some role rethinking the problematic paradigmatic premise of materialism, with its attendant meaning crisis. Also will hopefully create some logical link to similar conversations with the two JPs.

I am very excited to watch this as well. Unfortunately I could not follow live and comment in the chat - did anyone else?

[Simon Adams]

It was a good discussion, well brought back on track at a couple of points by the moderator. Vervaeke seemed to have an issue with telos for some reason, which seems strange for a neoplatonist. Once you add telos to meta-consciousness you get intentionality, surely? The intentionality of simple creatures is surely like an instinctual telos, the intentionality of humans like a meta-telos. I think we need a lot more words that have prefixes added to telos

I personally don’t see why this is a problem for Bernardo’s perspective. I’d argue that telos is something that comes from the idea from a theistic perspective, but if Bernardo uses “will” and “consciousness” interchangeably, there is at least a suggestion that intention is at some level inherent.

[Soul_of_Shu]

It was a good discussion, well brought back on track at a couple of points by the moderator. Vervaeke seemed to have an issue with telos for some reason, which seems strange for a neoplatonist. Once you add telos to meta-consciousness you get intentionality, surely? The intentionality of simple creatures is surely like an instinctual telos, the intentionality of humans like a meta-telos. I think we need a lot more words that have prefixes added to telos

I personally don’t see why this is a problem for Bernardo’s perspective. I’d argue that telos is something that comes from the idea from a theistic perspective, but if Bernardo uses “will” and “consciousness” interchangeably, there is at least a suggestion that intention is at some level inherent.

Yes, while it seemed JV and BK have more in common than not, intentionality was one of the sticking points.

I just clued in that the term 'dissociative', while it is normally associated with psychiatry, with trauma being a possible motive force, it is also a term used in chemistry, as in 'causing a molecule to split into atoms, ions, or smaller molecules, especially in a way that is reversible.' But the point remaining that it presumes some motive force as a cause.

And since, as he makes clear in this chat with John Vervaeke, BK understands intentionality as a function of being in the dissociated subject><object state, then the dissociative motive/process can't be intentional, and raises the question: what is the causal origin, beyond it being just an immanent imperative of some endogenous ideation to be emergently actualized as the apparency (maya) of the dissociated subject><object state? JV seems to make a good point that there seems the 'hard problem' of getting from non-intentionality to intentionality, inherently related to getting from non-dissociated to dissociated. My intuition is that it cannot have been precluded, and is indeed immanently imperative.