Part 2 of Kastrup and Vervaeke coming up May 21

[Soul_of_Shu]

[Starbuck]

Not sure where this conversation will go. Would be great if JV can read BK's books on Schopenhauer and Jung. They're his best explanation of the metaphysics, but also give a nod towards meaning and suffering which would bridge their two viewpoints.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Matt Segall's Whiteheadian take on Kastrup-Vervaeke part one ...

[electricshephard]

Looking forward to this.

[Eugene I]

Matt Segall's Whiteheadian take on Kastrup-Vervaeke part one ...

Wow, I'm very impressed by Matt's perspective and definitely resonate with it. Ahh, a breeze of fresh air to listen to a clear-minded and professional philosopher.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Part 2 beginning in about 40 minutes,hopefully as interesting as the first, and perhaps addresses some of Matt's points.

[AshvinP]

Matt Segall's Whiteheadian take on Kastrup-Vervaeke part one ...

Wow, I'm very impressed by Matt's perspective and definitely resonate with it. Ahh, a breeze of fresh air to listen to a clear-minded and professional philosopher.

It should be noted that Whitehead is very much aligned with Steiner and Barfield in terms of anti-Kantian critique, Nature in constant metamorphic progression, the fundamental unifying nature of Thinking activity, and the possibility of supersensible perception-knowledge.

“The misconception which has haunted philosophic literature throughout the centuries is the notion of 'independent existence.' There is no such mode of existence; every entity is to be understood in terms of the way it is interwoven with the rest of the universe.”

I am looking forward to round 2 as well!

[Eugene I]

It should be noted that Whitehead is very much aligned with Steiner and Barfield in terms of anti-Kantian critique, Nature in constant metamorphic progression, the fundamental unifying nature of Thinking activity, and the possibility of supersensible perception-knowledge.

“The misconception which has haunted philosophic literature throughout the centuries is the notion of 'independent existence.' There is no such mode of existence; every entity is to be understood in terms of the way it is interwoven with the rest of the universe.”

I agree with all of the above with the addition of the fundamental and unifying nature of the aspects of existence-awareness, without which the paradigm remains incomplete and which J. Vervaeke also often mentions calling them "the adverbial aspects". I'm also impressed with the Vervaeke's position of healthy and non-oppositional integration of the Eastern experiential-meditative approach and appreciation of the fundamental nature of the "adverbial aspects" with the neo-Platonic Western views on the fundamental nature and important role of ideation/thinking.

[AshvinP]

It should be noted that Whitehead is very much aligned with Steiner and Barfield in terms of anti-Kantian critique, Nature in constant metamorphic progression, the fundamental unifying nature of Thinking activity, and the possibility of supersensible perception-knowledge.

“The misconception which has haunted philosophic literature throughout the centuries is the notion of 'independent existence.' There is no such mode of existence; every entity is to be understood in terms of the way it is interwoven with the rest of the universe.”

I agree with all of the above with the addition of the fundamental and unifying nature of the aspects of existence-awareness, without which the paradigm remains incomplete and which J. Vervaeke also often mentions calling them "the adverbial aspects". I'm also impressed with the Vervaeke's position of healthy and non-oppositional integration of the Eastern experiential-meditative approach and appreciation of the fundamental nature of the "adverbial aspects" with the neo-Platonic Western views on the fundamental nature and important role of ideation/thinking.

No, as Whitehead makes clear, there is no such thing as unifying existence-awareness without the Thinking activity which provides the ideal content of "Unity". This is the most simple fact - explanation of anything requires Thinking. We cannot imagine a "reality" of pure awareness without first Thinking. The Thinking activity behind our thoughts is so ever-present that it always goes unnoticed until we call our own attention to it (this is also Heidegger's position which should become more clear in future essays). That activity is so simple that it is not worth mentioning in most arenas of life - it just happens and we take it for granted. Only in metaphysical discussions can such a simple fact be completely ignored or, even worse, treated as a "radical" claim.

[Eugene I]

No, as Whitehead makes clear, there is no such thing as unifying existence-awareness without the Thinking activity which provides the ideal content of "Unity". This is the most simple fact - explanation of anything requires Thinking. We cannot imagine a "reality" of pure awareness without first Thinking. The Thinking activity behind our thoughts is so ever-present that it always goes unnoticed until we call our own attention to it (this is also Heidegger's position which should become more clear in future essays). That activity is so simple that it is not worth mentioning in most arenas of life - it just happens and we take it for granted. Only in metaphysical discussions can such a simple fact be completely ignored or, even worse, treated as a "radical" claim.

And where exactly did I say that there is such thing as "unifying existence-awareness without the Thinking activity"? The Reality always exists in a unity of all its aspects - existence-awareness and thinking together. Yet, there are states of Consciousness without the realization/knowing of the unifying aspects of the existence-awareness even along with the Thinking activity. So the Reality is always unified in the existence-awareness-thinking aspects as a fact regardless whether the thinking activity is aware of it or not. But what thinking can do is to realize that fact and reflect it in its ideation.