Great

4/41 Do not use Jacobite/Monophysite on one extreme or Nestorian on other extreme Instead use 20years old invented word Miaphysite for Monophysite One Nature while Chalcedon is Two Natures/Diaphysite Nestorian church rejects 431AD Ephesus but not Oriental/Monophysites who reject 4th Council 451 AD Two Ambiguous terms Physus/and Hypostasis have caused terrible confusion so much so that Emperor Zeno 482 Henoticon omits both 9/33 Irony of Emperor Justinian Libelli Certificates imposing Chalcedon when he could not convert his own wife to Chalcedon After this imposition stance of Anti Chalcedon hardens and Rise of Islam not long after Ensures Divided Church remains permanent EK and EN/ ONE LETTER difference similar to Homousios and Homoiousios of earlier Arian debates Conception emphasized by Miaphysites versus Ascencion Emphasized by Chalcedon video 15/05 Not clear why modern view insists on both whereas Historical view was either /or Only by Tenth/Eleventh Century proportion of Christian to Muslim changes with latter becoming more than former/tables turned

Very clear explanations on the history of traditional historic churches. But one thing is obvious now that even though there is a potential for the unity of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, I don't think there will be any potential for the unity of the west (Roman Catholic) with the Eastern Orthodox churches including Orientals because Roman Catholic is drifting away from church traditional teachings in this Day N age. For instance, their pope allowing a blessings of same sex couples recently. This is being seen by both Eastern and Orientals as heretics to the extreme.

Sorry to the Duke of Brabant about the company I some time keep. Shared values are meaningful for good states of affairs but justifiable for illumination of human nature of all of us gets us into problems of sweeping brushes of nature.

Thanks Who is like god Lacewing.

In truth the way to live is like who is like Gods servant with wins that aren’t as transparent as General Superior Arturo Sosa S.J, talking about the devil being a symbolic reality and not a personal reality sometimes. It’s all in the book. Not just the Yellow pages springing epistemology out of psamistry. You will not learn how to rise from the dead from it properly though.

Thank youuu Sir Sobraaa

This guy teachers re at my school, I think he’s a decent teacher but so many people hate him

Sheer lunacy.

Whyre you calling yourself a ''mother'' instead of a father of midwiving the Earth or whatever?

Yes. I am looking for something beyond me. My life depends upon it. A very heartfelt thank you to Dr. McGilchrist for your courage, your many years of research, your philosophical inquiry. I am feeling and thinking 100 percent better...I am a better person and I will carry this with me.

What an absolute load of utter shite 😂

I agree with Jays opener- Eliot was a very purposeful, deeply religious writer and his books his poems were christian purposed - and paradoxical - he grapples and appeals to me for that reason. If one is not grappling with the spiritual then one cant fully buy into Eliot. In contrast, I just read John Berrymans Dream Songs which i found pining on my bookshelf. He was not a spiritual man. Berryman' was bereft, he had only his talent, he wrote about his lovers, his friends and his depression. That was about it. It wasnt enough.

Yes loved this

Beautiful

Superb!

On the problem of evil it is a non-issue, since being is better than not-being plus noone deserves heaven, one could argue that just because someone don't deserve heaven it does not follow that he deserves hell, but that argument will also ultimately fail down the line. There are other problems with this view it however. I do not see how this view of the will is compatible with the concept of mortal sin. What's more: once you have such a view of the will, you will be tempted to conclude that God created the world out of necessity or there is no meaningful analogy between creature and creator and the "image of God" is void of meaning. This is why I am utterly convinced that the will precedes the intellect.

I spent a few years in the Jesuits, but I did not go to Heythrop. Instead, I was sent to France, to study at the Jesuit philosophate at Chantilly. I had a very brief acquaintance with Heythrop just before leaving the order altogether. At that time, it did not seem to have a good reputation and my own path was marked out as novitiate (at Harlaxton), philosophy (in France), degree (Campion Hall, Oxford), regency (probably Stonyhurst), theology (Gregorian in Rome), tertianship (at St Beuno's in Wales). After leaving, I started my Ph.D at Harvard and finished it at University College London. UCL was the place where a brilliant professor (Myles Burnyeat) had moved to after a temporary lectureship at Harvard. He later moved to All Soul's Oxford and I finished my Ph.D with Richard Sorabji at King's College London. I moved to Japan and spent many years as a professor at Hiroshima University. My areas were Aristotle and Wittgenstein and two of my favorite teachers were Anscombe and Geach.

Transcript: channelmcgilchrist.com/writing/longing-and-wanting/

I have spent over 70 years of my life, almost daily, paying attention to what goes on in my brain and other people's brains for good reason that I write about in my memoirs. So I agree with everything Iain says, especially that the two sides DO pay attention to different things, like he says. I am rare in that nobody spends as much time in years as he and I have to discover these things. In fact I experience the use of both hemispheres, now being well developed, as the most balanced way we can live and BE. It is Nirvana maybe, or mystical, in any case beyond beautiful.

Research note: so we return the mind… (yagyu munenori)

Too many digressions! I wish he would focus on the poem itself. Just too general comment. Not enlightening at all.

This discussion sounds very left brainwash! x

Have you thought that there might be a THIRD WAY? x

TSE would say to Prof. Parini: Go back, go back, to Aristotle.

Jesus had no pretensions? That's pretty obtuse.

Nice talk; too much harping on fundamentalism; TSE would hold to dogma as a liberation; too critical of Fr. Hopkins.

Speaking from the Buddhist point of view (which is actually not possible beyond a certain point because different traditions have different perspectives) - 'longing for nirvana' would be more applicable to the Theravadin traditions of Sri Lanka, Thailand etc. The Mahayana traditions emphasise Buddhanature, the 'longing' in that sense is driven by the intuition that the boundless, infinite, joyous state of buddhahood being perennially imminent. Ironically, our dissatisfaction is driven by our sense that there is something transcendental, our buddhanature, in that sense, is the cause of our suffering (I say this slightly tongue in cheek, I'm not countering the four noble truths)

He is so damn eloquent it makes me want to read shakeapear and learn french read the classics climb a mountain slay a dragon...

Good talk

Is Brock catholic?

This deserves a million views.

The essens of God in/con-sists in his own Negation, in his Not-being.

Philosophie has no history, but a continuous attempt to refute itself. There's only Pre-socratic nonsense and Post-platonic drivel.

I wonder if it is possible to obtain a transcript of this session. Anyone know?

This is quite possibly one of the greatest lectures of all time.

He spent 7 minutes just reciting quotes. That is how much power is needed to combat left-brain thinking, people who are so narrow minded that they need a mountain of evidence to move them before they can even begin to contemplate something beyond the limits of their left brains.

Wow, that was absolutely fabulous.

Dr Brock has a very scholarly presentation. We Learn a lot about the variety of Christianities of the late classical and early medieval Middle East.

beautiful

And while they disputed about terminology, Islam took control of the Christian Middle East..... seems to me that that lesson hasn’t been fully understand.

I’m reminded of something said by a gifted scientist friend: “The mark of a good scientist is their willingness to say ‘I don’t know.’”

I would really like to know how Iain is getting on with his new book.

I'd very much like to see a transcript of the quote from Erwin Chargaff with which Mr. McGilchrist begins this talk. Does anyone know if transcripts for these talks are available?

Sincerely, thank you Taliaferro. What a beautiful mind.

I feel that beauty (aesthetics) relates to something 1) ephemeral. A rainbow, or a child's giggle , flower blooms in the desert after the rain. Words don't give justice to beauty for how can beauty have words? Maybe a brick or a maths equation have beauty. Maybe it is 2) subjective (only in the eyes of the beholder). 3) relative - we see thousands of pictures everyday in this world of digital, data, and information., my mind is trying to continually sort out the crap from the gold. It gives me headaches sometimes. Maybe its my small brain.4) meaning-- an art work on a cave in France had meaning to the artist when he killed the bison, ate it , shared it .,respected ,it. Doodling with a pencil would not be considered as beauty to most people. To see a great piece of architecture or sculpture for the FIRST time invokes a sense of awe and wonder, just as much as looking at a view from a mountain for the first time. After a hundred times it becomes a bit boring. Why do we seek perfection? How long is a piece of string? Are quarks and leptons seeking recognition in parliament? Time for a cuppa.

Deeply respect his talks.

“…The World Council of Churches has defined its goal of Church Unity in various ways. The substantial center of it is that the One Church of the future shall be a conciliar fellowship of Churches recognizing each other and each other’s membership and ministry as belonging to the Universal Church confessing one faith, receiving one baptism, sharing in the one Eucharist, and reaching the World in mission and service. In contrast to this vision, the Church today stands divided not only into Churches of the Catholic, the Orthodox, and the Protestant traditions but also within each of these traditions. In the Orthodox tradition, the ‘Eastern’ and ‘Oriental’ Churches have been in schism from the time of the Chalcedonian Council keeping each other outside one’s Eucharistic fellowship, because of the historically rooted perception that their different Christological formulations expressed the essential difference in faith. It has been Samuel Achen’s life-vocation to make his contribution to heal the schism in Orthodoxy and to promote dialogue, a dialogue of Orthodoxy with other traditions in view of the larger ecumenical unity. ‘Does Chalcedon Dived or United?’ edited by Paulos Mar Gregorios, William Lazareth, and Nikos Nissiotis and published by the WCC 1981 has the subtitle: ‘Towards Convergence in Orthodox Christology’. It is the account of ‘four unofficial conversations’ between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox theologians held at Aarhus, Denmark 1964, Bristol, England 1967, Geneva, Switzerland 1970 and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 1971. The word ‘Unofficial’ in the subtitle expresses the sensitivity between the two ecclesiastical traditions. They were ‘unofficial’ with more or less official ecclesiastical approval. The Agreed Statements show that the two Orthodox traditions have come a long way to indicate that their different Christological formulation expressed the same Christian faith. Ever since the fifth century, we used different formulas to confess one common faith in the One Lord Jesus Christ, perfect God, and perfect Man. Some of us affirm two natures, wills and energies hypostatically united in the One Lord Jesus Christ. Some of us affirm one united divine-human nature, will, and energy in the same Christ. But both sides speak of a union without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. The four adverbs belong to our common tradition. Both affirm the dynamic permanence of the Godhead and Manhood with all their natural properties and faculties in the one Christ. Those who speak in terms of ‘two’ do not thereby divide or separate. Those who speak in terms of ‘one’ do not thereby commingle or confuse. The ‘without division’, ‘without separation’ of those who say ‘two’ and ‘without change’, ‘without confusion’ of those who say ‘one’ need to be specially underlined, in order that we may understand each other. This agreed statement has opened the possibility of the two Orthodox families to take formal steps to lift the anathemas pronounced on each other and restore communion, and awaiting this to recognize each other as belonging to one Orthodox Church in informal relations. The contribution of Fr. Samuel made to this mutual understanding is unique. It starts with his deep scholarship in the writings of the Syriac and Greek fathers which led him to his doctorate research on the Alexandrian-Antiochian Christological controversy and to the discovery that it was not a real difference regarding the essential faith, but the misunderstanding of language exploited by politics which produced the schism. He had difficulty getting his doctorate thesis published in the West, so it was eventually published in India. However, Fr. Samuel's scholarship made him the foremost single authority on the Eastern-Oriental division. His papers, at the unofficial meetings of Orthodox theologians, ‘One Incarnate Nature of God the Word’ (1964), and ‘The Manhood of Jesus Christ in the Tradition of the Syrian Orthodox Church’ (1968) and discussions on them were decisive for Pan-Orthodox Christological convergence.” Dr. M.M. Thomas - Moderator WCC. More ... www.frvcs.in

As a nonprofessional, I think the reputed Syriac research scholar Dr. Sebastian Brock has not done his paper in-depth. He ignored or unaware of many important aspects of the theological and historical dialogues that took place in the second half of the 20th century which, promoted the conciliar unity among the divided churches. The Indian Theologian late Rev. Dr. V. C. Samuel (1912-98) has played a unique and pioneering role in making the ancient Alexandrian and Antiochene Christologiies intelligible as well as acceptable to both the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian Churches. Most of the modern thinkers and leaders who came later into the debate about the Person of Christ owe their basic insights to his outstanding research work at Yale University and its outcome. Please note a few of the testimonies of the eminent ecumenical leaders and scholars. “Father V.C. Samuel's paper on "One Incarnate Nature of God the Word" affirmed that phrase from Cyril of Alexandria (444 A.D.) as "a most crucial linguistic tool to conserve the Church's faith in the Person of Jesus Christ". It made very clear to the leading Byzantine theologians present like Johannes Karmiris, John Meyendorff, George Florovsky, John Romanides, Nikos Nissiotis, George Konidaris, and Vitaly Borovoy that the Oriental Orthodox agreed with the Byzantine Orthodox. It was Father V.C. Samuel's paper, which convinced them. There were other dignitaries present, like the present Syrian Patriarch of Antioch (Ignatius Zakka I was) and the present Armenian Catholicos of Antelias (Karekin II); it is no exaggeration to say, however, that there was no one on the Oriental Orthodox side who could convince the Byzantine theologians on the basis of historical scholarship that there was no essential disagreement between the Byzantines and the Orientals on the substance of Christological teaching. I had the great privilege of organizing, along with the late Nikos Nissiotis, that first unofficial theological conversation.” Paulose Mar Gregorios Presidents of WCC. “The Council of Chalcedon in 451 presented by no means a conclusion to the Christological problems raised at the end of the 4th century in Apollinaris’ attempt at explaining the relation between logos and the man Jesus. The negative propositions promulgated by the council at best determined the territory within which positive statements about the one person of Jesus Christ could be made. The statement of both the Alexandrian and the Antiochian Schools in reaching such positive affirmation was not met by the decisions of 451. Here a double question arises: (1) has the formula of 451 made concessions to the Nestorians (based perhaps on implicit permissions in the Tome of Leo)? And (2) has the insight into the hypostatic union-prefigured and supported by Cyril - been obscured by the Council of Chalcedon? The Orthodox critics of Chalcedon answered both these questions in the affirmative. The non-Chalcedonian tradition of the ancient Orthodox Church (not, of course, including the Nestorians) is based upon the Trinitarian theology of the councils of 325 and 381, on Cyril’s Second and Third Letters to Nestorius (including the 12 anathemas), and it accepts the Henotikon of 482 as Orthodox. Severus of Antioch (d. 538) is claimed an important witness. Prof. V.C. Samuel’s theological works ‘The Council of Chalcedon Reexamined: A Historical and Theological Survey’ is a major contribution towards clarifying the complex developments during and after the council of Chalcedon. In addition, his work is not only historical and analytic but theological and constructive. Fr. Samuel bases significant theological propositions and positions on his penetrating analysis into the reasons and logical conditions for the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries. We the Western Church are profoundly grateful for such interpretative and constructive work. The tension between Severus and John the Grammarian is regrettable. Moreover, the intention behind the “One Incarnate Nature of God the Word” and the Enhypostasis of the neo-Chalcedonians is of such subtle dimensions that western theology can only wish to learn from both, Severus and neo-Chalcedonians. Some western authors have drawn attention to the enormous theological and epistemological implications of a Christology, which is based ultimately, on Cyril and on the Trinitarian theology of the 4th century, notably Athanasius. It was above all Professor T.F. Torrance who has attempted to show that here lay the promising beginnings of theology (or philosophy of science) which can overcome dualism. His thesis is that these theologians of the incarnation have produced insight into the fallacy of cosmological and philosophical dualism that has only been fully unmasked in 20th-century physics. Thus, the all-embracing effect of the Incarnation not only permits thoughts such as H. Stickelberger maintains K. Barth had found helpful in combating the anthropological idea of autonomous powers or authorities. It also permits new and most helpful concepts concerning the ultimate reconciliation between forces and entities formerly thought of as being dualistically opposed to each other. I am not sure whether T.F. Torrance can rightly claim to find direct explications of such helpful theories in Cyril and the fathers who followed him. But it does seem to me that the non-Chalcedonians, in particular, hold some treasures which we are yet to discover. Fr. Samuel’s life-long scholarly work is a tremendous contribution toward such discovery. His publications are of great ecumenical importance with respect to the relation between the ancient Orthodox Churches and the Chalcedonians. And the Western Churches can learn directly from this constructive discourse. Patristic scholarship can learn to re-assess movements traditionally labeled “monophysite”. Moreover, theology in East and West can take up the challenge and re-visit genuine Incarnation -theologies of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries in order to equip itself with powerful instruments for overcoming dualistic concepts in cosmology, anthropology and in political ethics.” Prof. Dietrich Ritschl, Prof Heidelberg University. .... contd More www.frvcs.in

I'm so thankful for the internet giving me a chance to witness this wonderful and interesting Q and A video. Must watch more of mr. McGilchrist.