Great piece Matt, and find myself--despite my ingrained atheism--agreeing with your thoughts on the "wondrous infusion of a new felt perspective that inflects and transforms our sense of both self and cosmos is simply the way it feels for a dream character to recognize its simultaneous illusory nature as a separate being and its real identity as the One that has dreamt all this, and that is still dreaming it now." I think Iris deMent got it right in her song, which echoes precisely the option to not attempt to articulate the ystery of existence, but to "let the mystery be."
Thank you for this wonderful piece! You have such a way of putting things into perspective and making the universe seem so small and yet so vast all at the same time.
Besides your wise invitation to contemplate the wonder of the world being born in the present moment of consciousness, I appreciate the picture, which seems to remind us that there is no base level of reality "out there", material or spiritual, rather all things, including particles and souls, emerge from the all-seeing Eye that is our deepest essence. The illusion that makes us believe we are separate individuals with certain sets of (spiritualistic or materialistic) beliefs then misleads us into considering one level of manifestation as the most fundamental from which all else must be derived (more often than not through decidedly molieresque deductions).
Absolute fire. This is why I get frustrated with the re-enchanters like Rod Dreher who try to insert the supernatural into the world to regain a sense of wonder. That’s not even wrong.
When we apprehend consciousness and reality just as it is right now, no supernatural happening can be as mysterious as what’s already happening this very second in the mundane world.
I must agree, Stephen. I'm actually kind of fascinated by the paranormal, the supernatural, and the psychical (enough so that I edited/created an academic encyclopedia on the subject). But as you astutely note, this kind of thing isn't strictly necessary for encountering or calling out the sheer mystery and weirdness of reality, which is more directly on display in the fact of our own identities in this self-plus-world situation that presents itself to us right now. In fact, as Kripal and others have pointed out, irruptions of the anomalous and paranormal only appear as such because they pointedly call out the wondrous weirdness that's always implicit in this dance of the subjective with the objective.
There is something quite nourishing and comforting about reading and interacting with the ecosystem that "emerges" around these types of posts. Grateful for that, Matt.
Interesting topic. The type of emergence that's commonly accepted in science is "weak" emergence. The type of emergence where "and then a miracle happens" applies would be strong emergence, which is not really compatible with traditional materialism. One problem with believing that a strongly emergent "vital force" is necessary for life, or consciousness, is precisely that it introduces the equivalent of a "virtus dormativa" which explains nothing. I've just been listening to a Mindscape podcast episode by Sean Carroll (physicist) where he goes into detail on the topic of emergence; I think he would disagree with Lightman's blanket statement that "emergent phenomena are behaviors of complex systems that cannot be understood or predicted from the understanding of the individual parts of systems." That's one concept of emergence, but it would be inaccurate to present it as the one commonly accepted by most scientists.
As for reductionism, I think this often gets misunderstood as implying that if something can be explained in terms of its parts, the whole is not "real" in some sense. I think reductionism is better understood as talking about different levels of explanation which nest into each other but are all valid (except where one theory replaces another by demonstrating it was wrong to begin with). It would be absurd to think that cakes aren't real because they can be "reduced" to their ingredients and the recipe followed, down through the biology and chemistry of the eggs and flour to sub-atomic particles and quantum states. Reductionism is more like pointing out that you don't need Victoria Sponge as an element in the periodic table. It makes more sense to think of reductionism being applied to scientific theories than to things themselves. If a cake can be explained by chemistry and physics, it is still a cake; the concept of cake is still useful. The same would apply to emotions explained in terms of neuroscience, or a purely mechanistic explanation of how life began.
It's interesting that some presentations of spiritual ideas can end up being more radically reductionist than science, for example in the idea that the self isn't real because it can be conceptually reduced to mental "aggregates." Saying "all is one" can be interpreted as the ultimate reductionist statement. In both scientific reduction and this type of "spiritual reductionism" there is a risk of subtle ideas being interpreted too bluntly. I think there is still room for mystery in a reductionist scientific scheme, it's just that the mystery is hidden in plain sight in the very concept of matter - not "cold and dead" billiard balls but more like a magic fairy dust which can manifest as thoughts or cakes, planets or penguins. I think some of the instinctual opposition to materialism comes from an impoverished concept of matter - if materialism is correct, your thoughts themselves are a demonstration of what matter can be.
Appreciate your cogent thoughts/words on the matter. Indeed, the idea that understanding a thing in terms of its component or constituent parts means it's "nothing but" those parts is a pure fallacy of interpretation -- as if a poem, for example, is "nothing but" words and letters, which are themselves "nothing but" pixels on a screen or ink stains on a page, the latter of which are "nothing but" molecules and atoms and subatomic particles. But it was a major trap for so many people for so very long, and still is for some. Weird how the desire to read ourselves out of reality, to develop a conceptual filter that somehow sees with an objective eye and reveals an objective universe, meaning one stripped of our own seeing presence and interpretive mind, ever arose in the first place.
And I know what you mean about some spiritual ideas and/or the presentation of them also participating in their own form of reductionism.
Regarding materialism, the ineradicable and irreducible problem with it is that it still tries to get around the fact that our witnessing presence comes first. Any idea that matter, whose definition is of course difficult anyway, gives rise to the very consciousness, the witnessing presence, that observes things and stands as the center of experience and does things like coming up with the idea of matter -- any idea like this must necessarily remain pure speculation. The only thing we know for certain, know immediately, know without any shadow of doubt, is that experience happens. It's happening right now. Any proper philosophy, ontology, metaphysic, or phenomenology has to start from there. And more, it has to remain true to it and avoid cheating by smuggling some idea of actual objectivity through the back door of some sophisticated (or, as the case may be, not so sophisticated) philosophical or attitudinal sleight of hand.
Which is all a way of saying that the mystery that continues to inhere and abide in any reductionistic scheme of things is actually the mystery of our own identity as this witnessing presence, which can never be known because it is the source and seat of knowledge. All we can know, the *only* things we can know, are what we are not. We can never know what we are. We can only be it. And yet it's the thing without which nothing can be known.
Phrased so delightfully, "the realisation of the mystery that is our play in this world and our not so obvious but present awareness to our roles in this play. The momentous breaking of the 4th wall so to speak so as to reflect on what directions we're headed unto. Even in that moment may we be in control of the dream so to speak". Pardon me if I have summarized this sentiment in a manner not as you meant. But this was what I felt you meant to say. And truly, it resonated deeply and intuitively within me.
Great piece Matt, and find myself--despite my ingrained atheism--agreeing with your thoughts on the "wondrous infusion of a new felt perspective that inflects and transforms our sense of both self and cosmos is simply the way it feels for a dream character to recognize its simultaneous illusory nature as a separate being and its real identity as the One that has dreamt all this, and that is still dreaming it now." I think Iris deMent got it right in her song, which echoes precisely the option to not attempt to articulate the ystery of existence, but to "let the mystery be."
What a wonderful song. This is actually the first I've heard (or even heard of) it. Thanks, Michael!
Thank you for this wonderful piece! You have such a way of putting things into perspective and making the universe seem so small and yet so vast all at the same time.
Appreciate your saying that, M. L. I'm glad these reflections resonated with you.
Beautifully stated truth. 🙏
Thank, Andy. 🙏
Besides your wise invitation to contemplate the wonder of the world being born in the present moment of consciousness, I appreciate the picture, which seems to remind us that there is no base level of reality "out there", material or spiritual, rather all things, including particles and souls, emerge from the all-seeing Eye that is our deepest essence. The illusion that makes us believe we are separate individuals with certain sets of (spiritualistic or materialistic) beliefs then misleads us into considering one level of manifestation as the most fundamental from which all else must be derived (more often than not through decidedly molieresque deductions).
I like your further extension of the point, Gabriele. Thank you for formulating it.
Absolute fire. This is why I get frustrated with the re-enchanters like Rod Dreher who try to insert the supernatural into the world to regain a sense of wonder. That’s not even wrong.
When we apprehend consciousness and reality just as it is right now, no supernatural happening can be as mysterious as what’s already happening this very second in the mundane world.
Note: I’m not opposed to the paranormal. Crazy shit happens. I just think it’s the wrong starting point for wonder.
I must agree, Stephen. I'm actually kind of fascinated by the paranormal, the supernatural, and the psychical (enough so that I edited/created an academic encyclopedia on the subject). But as you astutely note, this kind of thing isn't strictly necessary for encountering or calling out the sheer mystery and weirdness of reality, which is more directly on display in the fact of our own identities in this self-plus-world situation that presents itself to us right now. In fact, as Kripal and others have pointed out, irruptions of the anomalous and paranormal only appear as such because they pointedly call out the wondrous weirdness that's always implicit in this dance of the subjective with the objective.
Exactly ❤️ Also, now I will have to go hunt down your work on the paranormal. Parapsychology is so fascinating.
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/ghosts-spirits-and-psychics-9781610696838/
I can't read this title without thinking of Reality Winner.
There is something quite nourishing and comforting about reading and interacting with the ecosystem that "emerges" around these types of posts. Grateful for that, Matt.
Thank you, Friend Brenda.
To be honest this is a very intelligent piece and I got lost in it, I hope you stop playing with mind someday 😂😂😂😂😂😭😭😭
I'm glad this one spoke to you, seth.
Interesting topic. The type of emergence that's commonly accepted in science is "weak" emergence. The type of emergence where "and then a miracle happens" applies would be strong emergence, which is not really compatible with traditional materialism. One problem with believing that a strongly emergent "vital force" is necessary for life, or consciousness, is precisely that it introduces the equivalent of a "virtus dormativa" which explains nothing. I've just been listening to a Mindscape podcast episode by Sean Carroll (physicist) where he goes into detail on the topic of emergence; I think he would disagree with Lightman's blanket statement that "emergent phenomena are behaviors of complex systems that cannot be understood or predicted from the understanding of the individual parts of systems." That's one concept of emergence, but it would be inaccurate to present it as the one commonly accepted by most scientists.
As for reductionism, I think this often gets misunderstood as implying that if something can be explained in terms of its parts, the whole is not "real" in some sense. I think reductionism is better understood as talking about different levels of explanation which nest into each other but are all valid (except where one theory replaces another by demonstrating it was wrong to begin with). It would be absurd to think that cakes aren't real because they can be "reduced" to their ingredients and the recipe followed, down through the biology and chemistry of the eggs and flour to sub-atomic particles and quantum states. Reductionism is more like pointing out that you don't need Victoria Sponge as an element in the periodic table. It makes more sense to think of reductionism being applied to scientific theories than to things themselves. If a cake can be explained by chemistry and physics, it is still a cake; the concept of cake is still useful. The same would apply to emotions explained in terms of neuroscience, or a purely mechanistic explanation of how life began.
It's interesting that some presentations of spiritual ideas can end up being more radically reductionist than science, for example in the idea that the self isn't real because it can be conceptually reduced to mental "aggregates." Saying "all is one" can be interpreted as the ultimate reductionist statement. In both scientific reduction and this type of "spiritual reductionism" there is a risk of subtle ideas being interpreted too bluntly. I think there is still room for mystery in a reductionist scientific scheme, it's just that the mystery is hidden in plain sight in the very concept of matter - not "cold and dead" billiard balls but more like a magic fairy dust which can manifest as thoughts or cakes, planets or penguins. I think some of the instinctual opposition to materialism comes from an impoverished concept of matter - if materialism is correct, your thoughts themselves are a demonstration of what matter can be.
Appreciate your cogent thoughts/words on the matter. Indeed, the idea that understanding a thing in terms of its component or constituent parts means it's "nothing but" those parts is a pure fallacy of interpretation -- as if a poem, for example, is "nothing but" words and letters, which are themselves "nothing but" pixels on a screen or ink stains on a page, the latter of which are "nothing but" molecules and atoms and subatomic particles. But it was a major trap for so many people for so very long, and still is for some. Weird how the desire to read ourselves out of reality, to develop a conceptual filter that somehow sees with an objective eye and reveals an objective universe, meaning one stripped of our own seeing presence and interpretive mind, ever arose in the first place.
And I know what you mean about some spiritual ideas and/or the presentation of them also participating in their own form of reductionism.
Regarding materialism, the ineradicable and irreducible problem with it is that it still tries to get around the fact that our witnessing presence comes first. Any idea that matter, whose definition is of course difficult anyway, gives rise to the very consciousness, the witnessing presence, that observes things and stands as the center of experience and does things like coming up with the idea of matter -- any idea like this must necessarily remain pure speculation. The only thing we know for certain, know immediately, know without any shadow of doubt, is that experience happens. It's happening right now. Any proper philosophy, ontology, metaphysic, or phenomenology has to start from there. And more, it has to remain true to it and avoid cheating by smuggling some idea of actual objectivity through the back door of some sophisticated (or, as the case may be, not so sophisticated) philosophical or attitudinal sleight of hand.
Which is all a way of saying that the mystery that continues to inhere and abide in any reductionistic scheme of things is actually the mystery of our own identity as this witnessing presence, which can never be known because it is the source and seat of knowledge. All we can know, the *only* things we can know, are what we are not. We can never know what we are. We can only be it. And yet it's the thing without which nothing can be known.
Phrased so delightfully, "the realisation of the mystery that is our play in this world and our not so obvious but present awareness to our roles in this play. The momentous breaking of the 4th wall so to speak so as to reflect on what directions we're headed unto. Even in that moment may we be in control of the dream so to speak". Pardon me if I have summarized this sentiment in a manner not as you meant. But this was what I felt you meant to say. And truly, it resonated deeply and intuitively within me.
I'm glad this post resonated, and I appreciate your engagement with it and nicely phrased re-presentation of it.