All Things Are Full Of Gods by David Bentley Hart. A summary and discussion

[@RobertLRead]

You are one of the few KZbin presenters who consistently elevate your audience. Good job!

[@PlatosPodcasts]

Thank you for saying so

[@RichardDownsmusic]

agreed!

[@jaslanr]

DBH is a gift. His thoughts on Apokatastasis are profound.

[@jps0117]

He is a "gift" to me as well, but with the German meaning of the word :)

[@Jacob011]

Mark, your don't know it, but you're my spiritual teacher. I didn't look for one - it just happened.

[@mendyman]

I'm very grateful for this. Although I think I'm going to have to fork out some money and lots of time to read this, now. I'm always excited by books and people that connect and make a synthesis (as, of course, mind does). Language, attention, allure, reality and relationality; this is full of promise.

[@PlatosPodcasts]

It rewards!

[@juanjuarez9581]

I think that Max Leyf and David Bentley are by far the best idealist philosophers of our time. This book, “All Things Full Of Gods”, is a jewel.

[@oliviergoethals4137]

... And B.Kastrup

[@joshuaroberts7898]

To reference Ibn Arabi: "There is no false imagination, none." Everything, even the illusory, presupposes mind - comes back to mind.

[@PlatosPodcasts]

Love that saying, thanks!

[@AthanasiusofIreland]

That's a cool quote

[@rogerheeleybarnes309]

Thanks Mark, and well done - as per usual of course ! Couldn't help being drawn by the pair of pears ! X x

[@3gables]

Just finished the book and this overview is very helpful! Thanks!

[@bayreuth79]

I asked D B Hart whether he thought that time, space and physical objects are just qualia in consciousness and he responded that his thought does tend in that direction.

[@tomward5293]

This is a very sophisticated line of enquiry. May make this book my Christmas read.

[@beniscatus6321]

I was attracted by the title and wondered if Hart had unique insights into the nature of these so-called gods informing and manifesting the world. It seems he mostly refutes materialism, which of course has been done well by others. The gods themselves must remain transcendent and aloof, known immanently only through their works (including all that make us suffer).

[@troytice8354]

Look forward to watching this. The book is excellent!

[@PlatosPodcasts]

Agreed

[@chrisallard1819]

Truly marvellous, many thanks

[@robinhard111]

I've really been looking forward to this book, he's been talking for some time about writing one on the nature of cosciousness.

[@PlatosPodcasts]

Doesn't disappoint

[@bavingeter423]

Been listening to this one, it’s probably the best philosophy book of the past 10 years

[@logos_spermaticos]

Is it readable for non scholastics?

[@ElizabethMohr]

Once again, a pleasant and highly encouraging listen. Profound thanks for these thoughtful overviews. :) (The shelf of works with which I intend to spend time and attention is growing to altogether unreasonable proportions. Still, I'm happy at the thought.)

[@CodyRArcher]

This is a wonderful talk my friend.

[@quixodian]

Splendid review and thank you for it ❤

[@phillewis3108]

I just started the book, this will be very helpful! Also, I like your picture of a pair…

[@PaulVanderKlay]

Good! Thanks for covering this.

[@cliffwilliams8511]

Great review of this very profound approach Bentley Hart offers here. Many keen takes on the Rose. But I didn't hear of its thorn in this rather mindfully deep analogy.

[@alisonkidd3989]

Really helpful introduction. Thanks Mark

[@PlatosPodcasts]

Helpful for me to attempt, too!

[@bradmodd7856]

If God is not a utilitarian approach then what is?

[@PaulVanderKlay]

Excellent!

[@oliviergoethals4137]

Thx Mark ... Very interesting

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Reflection is key. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

[@trupela]

Mark, can you please say something about CS Lewis’s use of machine as analogy for humans in Mere Christianity?

[@notthisnotthat2023]

The premise here is just about exact for Federico Faggin!

[@thomasstanford80191]

8:35 who's to say that the "thinking" the characters peruse isn't actually happening..

[@DavidGreenwood-nu6dd]

Very nice,Mark.

[@mattfallguy]

Of course you also have the Lancashire red rose, the Yorkshire white rose, an English rose, etc. Rose is a symbol held in mind. Different when held in each persons imagination.

[@balthysar68]

David and his brother Addison have been wonderful gifts to me and my spiritual and intellectual growth over the years. Thank you for covering this and for how you immerse us into David’s writings so well Mark. as far as William Blake goes, is there a secondary text and/or primary texts of his that you would recommend in getting one oriented in Blake’s thinking? I have admired him from afar for years, but I’ve never really delved very deeply into his thought and work. Thank you for any recommendations you have on that front.

[@pjk55]

Perhaps Northrop Frye's study of Blake, "Fearful Symmetry"?

[@balthysar68]

@ thank you so much for that recommendation!

[@superstrut8994]

"The mind is not reducible to the brain any more than the meaning of a book can be found by reducing the book to merely the print on the page" - The mind is not reducible to the brain alone, but rather to the interactions within its particular environment: the brain, light, temperature, sensations, ongoing feelings and perceptions, etc. In the same way, the meaning of a book is not fixed; it may change as one interprets it based on their experience at that moment. Nothing is fixed, and while an experience cannot be reduced to a single element, it can be understood as the sum of environmental factors, which are often overlooked.

[@PlatosPodcasts]

That's becoming part of the new biology, too, I believe.

[@hydrorix1]

Mark! Just found you, sir! I made this comment a couple of hours ago on "Beyond the Known" and I'm curious what you might think of it. It's long, but concise I hope. For all you diehard physicalist/materialist types out there, how can you possibly dismiss the idea that Consciousness is a Field and that we are manifestations within that Field just as electrons are manifestations of the EM Field? I mean, how hard is that to imagine and accept, really? So, then how hard is it to imagine that the EM Field is simply a Perception In Consciousness of the Consciousness Field? Where do we get a Consciousness Field? Well, where do we get the EM Field? Science has no answer to how the EM Field exists. It simply is, it's just there. Therefore, postulation of a Consciousness Field is equally as valid as postulation of the EM Field. Can't measure it. Neither could we measure the EM Field before we had an awareness of its existence. What if the Consciousness Field is the result of a Consciousness Singularity, in essence a black hole made of Consciousness? The Consciousness Singularity is the Primary Consciousness. All sentient life are partitioned bits of this Primary Consciousness, or Secondary Consciousness, similar to a hard drive being partitioned. Partitioned bits are of, by, and within the Consciousness Singularity, holographically and fractally identical to Primary Consciousness, and endowed with the separate sense of a self aware identity. Consciousness is all that actually exists. Everything else is Perception In Consciousness. Everything. Perception In Consciousness is a bilateral symbiotic flow of information between the partitioned bits and Primary Consciousness, sourcing experiential possibilities to the partitioned bits, while at the same time providing Primary Consciousness with the one thing that is totally unique and unrepeatable: Your Story. It is important to realize that Primary Consciousness is incomplete without each and every single partitioned bit of itself, inherently imbuing value and meaning to each partition. Quantum Entanglement is easily understandable as there is no space or distance or time within the Consciousness Singularity, other than as Perception In Consciousness. Veridical NDEs are best evidence of our true nature as discarnate Consciousness experiencing Perception In Consciousness.

[@trombone7]

1:53 - paraphrase - "Consciousness can't be an illusion because in order to experience an illusion one must already be conscious." That's not quite correct. You can trick a basic or advanced mammal with an illusion. Yes, consciousness can be an illusion. So is color and sound. And even free will. We live navigating signals fabricated by our sense organs and brains. Almost all of eastern philosophy is based on this consciousness being an illusion and on attempting to flip that switch back the other way. Saying things like, "The spiritedness of everything," or "we've lost touch with how amazing consciousness is." doesn't really support any claims. Thank you for the food for thought, though. I could use a good workout once in a while.

[@michiramonte]

Much love from kenya ...concerning canto 33 kindly can someone nake me understand more...what is the devine will or should we just live in accordance to our own understanding

[@PlatosPodcasts]

Dante says we humans have two aspects to our will - the personal will that usually rules or tries to, and the divine will within us as a kind of moral compass pointing towards what's true and beautiful. The spiritual life is, therefore, aligning the personal will with the divine will, to the extent that the personal becomes divine. Easier said than done...

[@nathanhassallpoetry]

I cannot wait to read this. Heard about it via John Vervaeke. I deeply appreciate your Dante videos, Mark. How much have you read of Kathleen Raine?

[@PlatosPodcasts]

Raine on Blake is fundamental, yes. Though my Blake is more Christian to her more directly Neoplatonist.

[@andrewx3y8c]

Where did you hear Vervaeke bring it up? Would be interested to hear what he said. I’ve heard him mention DBH generally but not with regard to All Things Are Full of Gods.

[@nathanhassallpoetry]

@@andrewx3y8c He either interviewed the author on his KZbin channel or it was vice-versa. If you search both their names you'll likely find them.

[@nathanhassallpoetry]

@@PlatosPodcasts Thank you for the response. I found Raine at a similar time to Barfield (I read Poetic Diction). I want such figures to be more prominent in contemporary poets education (among others). I'll make a video about Raine and Barfield separately on my KZbin channel. They've influenced my poetry practice as well as the nonfiction book I'm writing about poetry and transformation. It goes way deeper but I am keeping my cards close to my chest.

[@johndavis2399]

Mind Life Language Got it 👍

[@____uncompetative]

3:24 I'd start over if I had a police siren ruin my recording this early on.

[@ScientistBaffled]

whoa

[@Who2youtoo]

Explanations (understanding) will either be scientific, religious, or spiritual. There is a fourth explanation that incorporates all 3. It is the correct explanation as it includes and concurs with all 3. If you have an explanation (understanding) that does not correspond with all 3, then it is incomplete. God's LAW (love and wisdom) to you all and your families. RW

[@samparkes2477]

Hi Mark, just to let you know, whenever I try to download or listen to these discussions via Apple Podcasts, they nearly always say ‘unable to download’ and ‘temporarily unavailable’.

[@PlatosPodcasts]

Hmm. I don't use that I fear and don't understand what's wrong. Will check buzzsprout that I use to host. Spotify seems to be fine - open.spotify.com/episode/1Sz0WEBpjr33WSlCIGNh1s?si=hF6q8NVbR3Oow-eZbNAfhg

[@PlatosPodcasts]

Here's the Apple Podcasts link - podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/all-things-are-full-of-gods-by-david-bentley-hart/id1546601983?i=1000671977851

[@Who2youtoo]

I am typing this out, but I am not directing the body or the mind to do so. How do I know this is the case? Well, simply put, I have no idea how to make the body mind system do anything it does. It feels like me and I take responsibility, of course, but I am being honest when I say I have no idea how I am making my body type this out. I am effectively doing something (moving, talking, thinking) that I don't know how to do. I can quite easily see that the universal consciousness (I call it God) can create this body/mind transmitter/receiver and connect me to it to experience the story from within. I no longer need to wonder what it would be like to be a character born and living out a life on earth. I can experience it as if I were. You are tuned into radio your name,, and our world is saturated with characters. If science turned its investigations from inward search for you and I to an outward source, I think they might be surprised by Who? they find. ❤️🙏Ramanamma Who? Author and 21st-century prophet.

[@MarmaladeINFP]

Keep in mind that many thinkers distinguish 'consciousness' as a specific category of human experience, as opposed to being the sine qua non of all possible experience. Often consciousness is associated with the individualistic ego-mind. Some of the theories about consciousness or rather the ego not being fundamental not only include the secular scholars like Daniel Dennett and Julian Jaynes but also religious practitioners like Buddhists. Whether or not psyche is real, and whether or not the world is full of psyche (animism, panentheism, cosmopsychism, etc), that psyche may not be egoic nor is it necessarily an unchanging substance. According to Buddhism, even a god's ego would be empty and unreal. There might be far more to self, psyche, and awareness than mere consciousness, and consciousness might not be what we think it is or else less than it seems. In fact, consciousness as the ego-mind might be false, illusory, superficial, or partial. In my own Buddhist-like practice of mindfulness, that is the conclusion I've come to -- there is no there there. It's the bundle theory of mind, as first articulated by the Buddhists more than two millennia ago. This brings us to explore other views such as 4E cognition (embodied, embedded, enacted, extended), 5E cognition (plus ecological), and 7E cognition (plus emotional and exapted). Once we open up to this level of humility and curiosity, all kinds of possibilities emerge. All of that might seem like technical quibbling over terminology. All I can speak from is my own experience, not only meditation and mindfulness but also psychedelics (entheogens, ecodelics, etc), along with immersion in and contemplation of the natural world. There does seem to be a real distinction to be made and maintained. What if egoic consciousness is not the only, much less most natural and optimal, way of being in and of the world? Even so, I have no doubt that many of David Bentley Hart's speculations, observations, and insights could be reinterpreted to this other expansive view. But my own approach emphasizes direct experience combined with radical skepticism (zeteticism), hence requiring negative capability and tolerance for cognitive dissonance, to hold self and world lightly.

[@PlatosPodcasts]

He does differentiate the psychological self/ego from consciousness as ground, yes. But is an advocate of atman, drawing much on Vedanta, so would be different from Buddhist anatman. Then again, there's more than one reading of these matters on all traditions.

[@MarmaladeINFP]

@@PlatosPodcasts - I haven't read Hart's book. I wasn't sure where he is coming from. I understand the appeal of atman. And having been raised a left-liberal Christian, it once would've strongly appealed to me. It's not that I now necessarily and entirely deny egoic personality, human and/or divine. It's more that I moved away from feeling a need for some absolute reality. I've grown accepting with the unknowability and mystery.

[@catherinebridle9414]

Echoes of Iain McGilchrist's work here.

[@BrianKDew]

Sunlight, in our naive experience of it, has nothing “rainbow-like” about it, therefore rainbows cannot arise from it. … Just as consciousness, mind, and language cannot arise from matter. It’s easy to wax romantic about a philosophy with which we agree when we don’t actually have to understand or defend it.

[@mariakatariina8751]

James Giordano / IBB world Championship AI neural networks studying together, video in KZbin

[@YogawithSeniors]

David Bentley Hart works out the metaphysical map, while writers like Joseph Goldstein, Swami Sarvapriyananda, Ajahn Chah, and John Martin Sahajananda take you beyond the mere words on the page and into the phenomenology of what Hart is writing about, particularly in relation to vipassana meditation.

[@PlatosPodcasts]

Yup, and I suspect the metaphysics is close to the phenomenology is close to the practice is close to the transmission...

[@MaryJones-d7e]

Walker Jason Young George Thompson Shirley

[@MattStemp]

Calling strong emergence "magical thinking" while landing on the (obviously, unmagical) view of idealism is an enjoyable irony.

[@MattStemp]

What strikes me about this whole tiresome discourse is how profoundly unsociological it all is. The tree has multiple meanings, for example, not because of some vague and supernatural quality called "intentionality" supervening on individual brains but because we can only understand things we encounter in the world socially through communication with others (or rather, that is in fact what "understanding" entails). It is this evolved capacity of groups for communication that funds cultural evolution, understood as the development of interpretive communities and the diverse forms and modes of meaning-making they enable. We understand the tree differently because we belong to different communities of meaning-making. None of this of course makes the "nature" (so-called) of consciousness or matter and their relationship any less mysterious. But if we cannot even interrogate and frame these questions in a sociological way then it seems to me we have not even begun to think about these mysteries at all. And until this point is taken seriously, the idealists and the reductionists will continue talking straight past each other.

[@paawanarora1111]

This is by ancient saints of India not David bantley heart

[@PlatosPodcasts]

He much acknowledges them, yup

[@fredjimbob2962]

Wow, how can anyone read a book of such utter gibberish. The utter meaningless babbling nonsense that people can occupy themselves with is just so sad and pathetic, what a waste.

[@elenechaduneli]

why are you so aggressive over a book-

[@fredjimbob2962]

@@elenechaduneli I'm not aggressive and I'm talking about the people who read the book, not the book. If you've got any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

[@josephclark1431]

Funny, that's the view of Hephastos in the book. All is sound and fury, signifying nothing

[@fredjimbob2962]

@@josephclark1431 Omg, you found an unbelievably stupid story in an unbelievably stupid book, how is this even possible?

[@fredjimbob2962]

@@josephclark1431 btw, if you want to have a more productive conversation and tell me about something intelligent or wise that you think the book says, I'll be happy to explain why you're wrong. I offer this service for free and you're very welcome.