Another recent BK interview

[AshvinP]

Having now watched the full interview I can say that I rather liked it. However, there's an important caveat offered by BK. Near the beginning, he clearly states that he is speaking from the pov of Western Civilization and he admits that human nature acculturated in other contexts may be "more mature" or less childish in the desire/need for comforting convenient deceptions. In this regard, I was reminded of ethnobotanist Wade Davis, in "The Serpent and the Rainbow", asking the Vodun priest if there was both white and black magic. The priest answers that both exist but the difference between Wade's culture and his is that, "We know the difference." My takeaway is that there exist varieties of being human that offer better possibilities for human survival through the planetary initiation phase known as apocalypse/revelation. Perhaps the collective we may yet find a way to recombine the insights of different cultural varieties in order return to the garden and know it for the first time. I believe that animism, shamanism, mysticism and the modern paradigm may recombine into sacramental ways better fit for survival. Know hope.

Lou,

I like the way you phrase this. Now think of how BK's position, if it were to be adopted by most people, and I would argue has been adopted by most people, since resignation of one sort or another seems to be the defining feature of global culture these days (including India, China, etc., but not including indigenous populations), ensures that no such recombination, or anything similar, will occur in the near-term. The very possibility of ascertaining "better possibilities" has been declared impossible and, therefore, a waste of time and effort. When that possibility is eliminated, the only remaining possibility is global warfare.

[Lou Gold]

Having now watched the full interview I can say that I rather liked it. However, there's an important caveat offered by BK. Near the beginning, he clearly states that he is speaking from the pov of Western Civilization and he admits that human nature acculturated in other contexts may be "more mature" or less childish in the desire/need for comforting convenient deceptions. In this regard, I was reminded of ethnobotanist Wade Davis, in "The Serpent and the Rainbow", asking the Vodun priest if there was both white and black magic. The priest answers that both exist but the difference between Wade's culture and his is that, "We know the difference." My takeaway is that there exist varieties of being human that offer better possibilities for human survival through the planetary initiation phase known as apocalypse/revelation. Perhaps the collective we may yet find a way to recombine the insights of different cultural varieties in order return to the garden and know it for the first time. I believe that animism, shamanism, mysticism and the modern paradigm may recombine into sacramental ways better fit for survival. Know hope.

Lou,

I like the way you phrase this. Now think of how BK's position, if it were to be adopted by most people, and I would argue has been adopted by most people, since resignation of one sort or another seems to be the defining feature of global culture these days (including India, China, etc., but not including indigenous populations), ensures that no such recombination, or anything similar, will occur in the near-term. The very possibility of ascertaining "better possibilities" has been declared impossible and, therefore, a waste of time and effort. When that possibility is eliminated, the only remaining possibility is global warfare.

Ashvin,

I hear, read, perceive Bernardo's BIG PICTURE ontic view in the framework of the extraordinary testament of the artist/philosopher Rockwell Kent, who more than a century ago said:

Often I think that however much I draw or paint, or however well, I am not an artist as art is generally understood. The abstract is meaningless to me save as a fragment of the whole, which is life itself… It is the ultimate which concerns me, and all physical, all material things are but an expression of it… We are part and parcel of the big plan of things. We are simply instruments recording in different measure our particular portion of the infinite. And what we absorb of it makes for character, and what we give forth, for expression.

In the bolded sense above all our visions-models-stories are meaningless or mere fragments.

I further respect and deeply appreciate that Bernardo is openly admitting that he has anxieties about what might exist beyond living experience. I see him as wrestling with that in the context of being aware of the powerful human urges toward convenient comforting self-deceptions. In my view he is being consistent with his insight in "More Than Allegory" that myth must be believed to work AND that it is a myth. Now, keenly aware of it being a myth, he is also grokking why humans are fearful of taking the plunge of pure faith. I don't see this as nihilism. I see it as self-honest anxiety. The key, in this interview is the starting high profile given to Peter Kingsley and his deep plunge into Jung. This IS frightening stuff.

[AshvinP]

Having now watched the full interview I can say that I rather liked it. However, there's an important caveat offered by BK. Near the beginning, he clearly states that he is speaking from the pov of Western Civilization and he admits that human nature acculturated in other contexts may be "more mature" or less childish in the desire/need for comforting convenient deceptions. In this regard, I was reminded of ethnobotanist Wade Davis, in "The Serpent and the Rainbow", asking the Vodun priest if there was both white and black magic. The priest answers that both exist but the difference between Wade's culture and his is that, "We know the difference." My takeaway is that there exist varieties of being human that offer better possibilities for human survival through the planetary initiation phase known as apocalypse/revelation. Perhaps the collective we may yet find a way to recombine the insights of different cultural varieties in order return to the garden and know it for the first time. I believe that animism, shamanism, mysticism and the modern paradigm may recombine into sacramental ways better fit for survival. Know hope.

Lou,

I like the way you phrase this. Now think of how BK's position, if it were to be adopted by most people, and I would argue has been adopted by most people, since resignation of one sort or another seems to be the defining feature of global culture these days (including India, China, etc., but not including indigenous populations), ensures that no such recombination, or anything similar, will occur in the near-term. The very possibility of ascertaining "better possibilities" has been declared impossible and, therefore, a waste of time and effort. When that possibility is eliminated, the only remaining possibility is global warfare.

Ashvin,

I hear, read, perceive Bernardo's BIG PICTURE ontic view in the framework of the extraordinary testament of the artist/philosopher Rockwell Kent, who more than a century ago said:

Often I think that however much I draw or paint, or however well, I am not an artist as art is generally understood. The abstract is meaningless to me save as a fragment of the whole, which is life itself… It is the ultimate which concerns me, and all physical, all material things are but an expression of it… We are part and parcel of the big plan of things. We are simply instruments recording in different measure our particular portion of the infinite. And what we absorb of it makes for character, and what we give forth, for expression.

In the bolded sense above all our visions-models-stories are meaningless or mere fragments.

I further respect and deeply appreciate that Bernardo is openly admitting that he has anxieties about what might exist beyond living experience. I see him as wrestling with that in the context of being aware of the powerful human urges toward convenient comforting self-deceptions. In my view he is being consistent with his insight in "More Than Allegory" that myth must be believed to work AND that it is a myth. Now, keenly aware of it being a myth, he is also grokking why humans are fearful of taking the plunge of pure faith. I don't see this as nihilism. I see it as self-honest anxiety. The key, in this interview is the starting high profile given to Peter Kingsley and his deep plunge into Jung. This IS frightening stuff.

Well, I think the existentialists beat him to that particular punch bowl by a solid 200 years. And it was much more understandable for them, without the ability to survey the amazing amount of philosophical and scientific insight since then. If BK would simply drop the implicit dualism and corresponding abstraction in his analytic philosophy, his entire outlook on human Reason would be flipped on its head. If he simply read a few things on his own forums with genuine intent to understand the arguments. There is no "pure faith" involved, only basic logical reasoning of the sort he has engaged his entire life. I don't think he would even need to revise most of the stuff he has already written. It may come at a significant financial cost, but I'm not really sure. The ego, no doubt, would take a big hit, but nothing it cannot recover from. Take a look at Rupert Sheldrake. Ridicule from the academic status quo did not slow him down. So I see no excuses for BK, either. He may not have Jordan Peterson following, but he has signficant enough of a platform to make a difference.

[Lou Gold]

Lou,

I like the way you phrase this. Now think of how BK's position, if it were to be adopted by most people, and I would argue has been adopted by most people, since resignation of one sort or another seems to be the defining feature of global culture these days (including India, China, etc., but not including indigenous populations), ensures that no such recombination, or anything similar, will occur in the near-term. The very possibility of ascertaining "better possibilities" has been declared impossible and, therefore, a waste of time and effort. When that possibility is eliminated, the only remaining possibility is global warfare.

Ashvin,

I hear, read, perceive Bernardo's BIG PICTURE ontic view in the framework of the extraordinary testament of the artist/philosopher Rockwell Kent, who more than a century ago said:

Often I think that however much I draw or paint, or however well, I am not an artist as art is generally understood. The abstract is meaningless to me save as a fragment of the whole, which is life itself… It is the ultimate which concerns me, and all physical, all material things are but an expression of it… We are part and parcel of the big plan of things. We are simply instruments recording in different measure our particular portion of the infinite. And what we absorb of it makes for character, and what we give forth, for expression.

In the bolded sense above all our visions-models-stories are meaningless or mere fragments.

I further respect and deeply appreciate that Bernardo is openly admitting that he has anxieties about what might exist beyond living experience. I see him as wrestling with that in the context of being aware of the powerful human urges toward convenient comforting self-deceptions. In my view he is being consistent with his insight in "More Than Allegory" that myth must be believed to work AND that it is a myth. Now, keenly aware of it being a myth, he is also grokking why humans are fearful of taking the plunge of pure faith. I don't see this as nihilism. I see it as self-honest anxiety. The key, in this interview is the starting high profile given to Peter Kingsley and his deep plunge into Jung. This IS frightening stuff.

Well, I think the existentialists beat him to that particular punch bowl by a solid 200 years. And it was much more understandable for them, without the ability to survey the amazing amount of philosophical and scientific insight since then. If BK would simply drop the implicit dualism and corresponding abstraction in his analytic philosophy, his entire outlook on human Reason would be flipped on its head. If he simply read a few things on his own forums with genuine intent to understand the arguments. There is no "pure faith" involved, only basic logical reasoning of the sort he has engaged his entire life. I don't think he would even need to revise most of the stuff he has already written. It may come at a significant financial cost, but I'm not really sure. The ego, no doubt, would take a big hit, but nothing it cannot recover from. Take a look at Rupert Sheldrake. Ridicule from the academic status quo did not slow him down. So I see no excuses for BK, either. He may not have Jordan Peterson following, but he has signficant enough of a platform to make a difference.

PS: Ashvin,

QUITE CONTRARY to the advice given to you by Dana, I would STRONGLY recommend that you watch and carefully consider the full video. I suspect that you might find yourself in substantial agreement with BK's critique of intellectual thinking and his much deeper defense of myth. Don't waste time wrestling with my views. Go see for yourself.

[Lou Gold]

Ashvin,

I hear, read, perceive Bernardo's BIG PICTURE ontic view in the framework of the extraordinary testament of the artist/philosopher Rockwell Kent, who more than a century ago said:

Often I think that however much I draw or paint, or however well, I am not an artist as art is generally understood. The abstract is meaningless to me save as a fragment of the whole, which is life itself… It is the ultimate which concerns me, and all physical, all material things are but an expression of it… We are part and parcel of the big plan of things. We are simply instruments recording in different measure our particular portion of the infinite. And what we absorb of it makes for character, and what we give forth, for expression.

In the bolded sense above all our visions-models-stories are meaningless or mere fragments.

I further respect and deeply appreciate that Bernardo is openly admitting that he has anxieties about what might exist beyond living experience. I see him as wrestling with that in the context of being aware of the powerful human urges toward convenient comforting self-deceptions. In my view he is being consistent with his insight in "More Than Allegory" that myth must be believed to work AND that it is a myth. Now, keenly aware of it being a myth, he is also grokking why humans are fearful of taking the plunge of pure faith. I don't see this as nihilism. I see it as self-honest anxiety. The key, in this interview is the starting high profile given to Peter Kingsley and his deep plunge into Jung. This IS frightening stuff.

Well, I think the existentialists beat him to that particular punch bowl by a solid 200 years. And it was much more understandable for them, without the ability to survey the amazing amount of philosophical and scientific insight since then. If BK would simply drop the implicit dualism and corresponding abstraction in his analytic philosophy, his entire outlook on human Reason would be flipped on its head. If he simply read a few things on his own forums with genuine intent to understand the arguments. There is no "pure faith" involved, only basic logical reasoning of the sort he has engaged his entire life. I don't think he would even need to revise most of the stuff he has already written. It may come at a significant financial cost, but I'm not really sure. The ego, no doubt, would take a big hit, but nothing it cannot recover from. Take a look at Rupert Sheldrake. Ridicule from the academic status quo did not slow him down. So I see no excuses for BK, either. He may not have Jordan Peterson following, but he has signficant enough of a platform to make a difference.

PS: Ashvin,

QUITE CONTRARY to the advice given to you by Dana, I would STRONGLY recommend that you watch and carefully consider the full video. I suspect that you might find yourself in substantial agreement with BK's critique of intellectual thinking and his much deeper defense of myth. Don't waste time wrestling with my views. Go see for yourself.

PPS: Don't take me for a complete fan of BK's form of idealism. I also like Rupert Sheldrake and other thinkers a lot.

[AshvinP]

PS: Ashvin,

QUITE CONTRARY to the advice given to you by Dana, I would STRONGLY recommend that you watch and carefully consider the full video. I suspect that you might find yourself in substantial agreement with BK's critique of intellectual thinking and his much deeper defense of myth. Don't waste time wrestling with my views. Go see for yourself.

I think Dana is quite impartial here, but I am also going on TriloByte. What he indicates below sounds exactly like current BK to me, and I share TB's view that his views on these topics are completely inverted.

Minute 44’ 43”:

"Intrinsically evil arquetipes in nature. Look at the Serengueti= a blood bath."

Minute 48’ 24”:

"Our entire justice system is based on revenge."

Nevertheless, I will try to watch some of it, at least.

[AshvinP]

PS: Ashvin,

QUITE CONTRARY to the advice given to you by Dana, I would STRONGLY recommend that you watch and carefully consider the full video. I suspect that you might find yourself in substantial agreement with BK's critique of intellectual thinking and his much deeper defense of myth. Don't waste time wrestling with my views. Go see for yourself.

I think Dana is quite impartial here, but I am also going on TriloByte. What he indicates below sounds exactly like current BK to me, and I share TB's view that his views on these topics are completely inverted.

Minute 44’ 43”:

"Intrinsically evil arquetipes in nature. Look at the Serengueti= a blood bath."

Minute 48’ 24”:

"Our entire justice system is based on revenge."

Nevertheless, I will try to watch some of it, at least.

So I started at 30 min and only made it to 32 min, because I already know exactly where he is going and why I disagree. BK says:

"It is terrifying, what we really are. We don't want to confront what is really going on. It transcends our value system and references."

As I have tried to make clear in various essays and posts, all modern worldviews have turned nihilistic because they are incompete. At best, they acknowledge half of the reality and leave the other half out. It's easy to see why that turns what should be fundamentally optimistic and idea-listic into nihilism. He is correct that, from our intellectual perspective, there are deep terrors lurking within the human soul and, to have any chance of moving beyond them, we must also confront them. He is correct that practically no one wants to admit this. But what he ignores is the entire depth structure of archetypal meaning beyond the threshold of the rational intellectual ego.

He is simply wrong about Jung, because Jung's entire psychology of individuation towards the Self presupposes the continuity of our value system (our human ideals) and references with the deepest layers of archetypal meaning. How conscious Jung himself was of that continuity doesn't really matter. His actions in developing the psychology and practices like "active imagination" takes it further than nearly all other 20th century thinkers. He also wrote at length about "the Spirit in art, literature, and mythology", as well as medieval astrology and alchemy. All of these things point to complete opposite conclusions of BK in this video. Peterson is a much better source on Jung when it comes to the latter's spiritual outlook.

BK: "Jung was an expert of couching it in language that provides comfort without doing complete injustice to the truth."

Nonsense. Jung wrote what he wrote because he meant it and knew it to be true. When asked whether he believed in God, he said, "I don't believe, I know". He identified Christ as the archetypal Self, the highest ideal, to which the human individual strives. He was well versed in esoteric Christianity, and is often associated with Gnosticism, so he held this to be more than an intellectual theory or religious system, but a concrete reality. If BK is correct about his metaphysical idealism, then that is even more true. So, in short, BK has competely inverted the situation because he fails to continue logically reasoning after reaching his own desired pessimistic conclusion about "reality", just like the materialists, rationalists, dualists, panpsychists, critical idealists, and practically every other 'ist' of the modern age. The rational intellect is the one who is Self-destructive, not Reality itself.

[Lou Gold]

So I started at 30 min and only made it to 32 min, because I already know exactly where he is going and why I disagree. BK says:

"It is terrifying, what we really are. We don't want to confront what is really going on. It transcends our value system and references."

As I have tried to make clear in various essays and posts, all modern worldviews have turned nihilistic because they are incompete. At best, they acknowledge half of the reality and leave the other half out. It's easy to see why that turns what should be fundamentally optimistic and idea-listic into nihilism. He is correct that, from our intellectual perspective, there are deep terrors lurking within the human soul and, to have any chance of moving beyond them, we must also confront them. He is correct that practically no one wants to admit this. But what he ignores is the entire depth structure of archetypal meaning beyond the threshold of the rational intellectual ego.

He is simply wrong about Jung, because Jung's entire psychology of individuation towards the Self presupposes the continuity of our value system (our human ideals) and references with the deepest layers of archetypal meaning. How conscious Jung himself was of that continuity doesn't really matter. His actions in developing the psychology and practices like "active imagination" takes it further than nearly all other 20th century thinkers. He also wrote at length about "the Spirit in art, literature, and mythology", as well as medieval astrology and alchemy. All of these things point to complete opposite conclusions of BK in this video. Peterson is a much better source on Jung when it comes to the latter's spiritual outlook.

BK: "Jung was an expert of couching it in language that provides comfort without doing complete injustice to the truth."

Nonsense. Jung wrote what he wrote because he meant it and knew it to be true. When asked whether he believed in God, he said, "I don't believe, I know". He identified Christ as the archetypal Self, the highest ideal, to which the human individual strives. He was well versed in esoteric Christianity, and is often associated with Gnosticism, so he held this to be more than an intellectual theory or religious system, but a concrete reality. If BK is correct about his metaphysical idealism, then that is even more true. So, in short, BK has competely inverted the situation because he fails to continue logically reasoning after reaching his own desired pessimistic conclusion about "reality", just like the materialists, rationalists, dualists, panpsychists, critical idealists, and practically every other 'ist' of the modern age. The rational intellect is the one who is Self-destructive, not Reality itself.

No problem Ashvin. I'm not trying to sell you on BK's idealism. I just thought you would find some the interview quite compatible with some positions you favor. If you grokked the taste and texture of the cake from a few crumbs and disliked it, sobeit and happy trails to you.

I found the interview rich and rewarding in both style and substance. That said, however, I have my own qualms with AI, which boil down to 1) I do not believe that a great analysis can penetrate the culture very deeply without a compelling story and 2) I believe that the compelling story will have to put the archetypal Mother back on Her rightful throne. OK. Those are my biases freely offered as a confession and not as an invitation to debate.

[Soul_of_Shu]

PS: Ashvin,

QUITE CONTRARY to the advice given to you by Dana, I would STRONGLY recommend that you watch and carefully consider the full video. I suspect that you might find yourself in substantial agreement with BK's critique of intellectual thinking and his much deeper defense of myth. Don't waste time wrestling with my views. Go see for yourself.

Lou, to be clear, I simply pointed out that Ashvin was unlikely to find anything new from BK that he hasn't heard before, which might change his mind about BK's approach to idealism, as apposed to his own. Ashvin is surely informed from reading MTA about BK's take on myth, and may well resonate with it. However, given how significantly they part ways after that, in response to Ashvin's original question about what difference BK was offering this time, it just seems that solely by listening to the same arguments all over again, it's doubtful that anything BK offers this time is likely to bridge the gap. What really might be helpful is if they were to actually talk it out between them, to get at the core of the differences, and therein see if they might be reconciled. But the way that BK is now mostly going about communicating at his audience at large, via carefully selected interviewers who mostly defer to his view, rather than having any open dialogos with the likes of Ashvin about his critique, whether in the context of this forum or elsewhere, alas that now seems to have been precluded.

[Starbuck]

PS: Ashvin,

QUITE CONTRARY to the advice given to you by Dana, I would STRONGLY recommend that you watch and carefully consider the full video. I suspect that you might find yourself in substantial agreement with BK's critique of intellectual thinking and his much deeper defense of myth. Don't waste time wrestling with my views. Go see for yourself.

Lou, to be clear, I simply pointed out that Ashvin was unlikely to find anything new from BK that he hasn't heard before, which might change his mind about BK's approach to idealism, as apposed to his own. Ashvin is surely informed from reading MTA about BK's take on myth, and may well resonate with it. However, given how significantly they part ways after that, in response to Ashvin's original question about what difference BK was offering this time, it just seems that solely by listening to the same arguments all over again, it's doubtful that anything BK offers this time is likely to bridge the gap. What really might be helpful is if they were to actually talk it out between them, to get at the core of the differences, and therein see if they might be reconciled. But the way that BK is now mostly going about communicating at his audience at large, via carefully selected interviewers who mostly defer to his view, rather than having any open dialogos with the likes of Ashvin about his critique, whether in the context of this forum or elsewhere, alas that now seems to have been precluded.

Actually Bernardo was on a discord AMA last week - there were even live calls where people put forward questions and follow up questions. Bernardo said he wanted to do it again.