Deep Desires/Longing and Wanting - Research Seminar Q and A, 7th March 2017

Deep Desires/Longing and Wanting - Religious Experience Research Seminar Q and A, Tuesday 7th March 2017. Speakers: David McPherson; Iain McGilchrist.

[@marielloyd8594]

Thank you, Iain, for your more complete sense of Buddhism. I attended a talk on Buddhism here, then heard and was instantly drawn to a Zen master here in Canada although I had entered the room as a technical atheist and only decided to hear his talk out of curiosity ....which does not kill the cat. I entered through one door and exited another, one wholly unfamiliar yet that I instantly recognized as mine. As my door : Zen. I retired early to attend longer practices and was with my teacher for about twenty years, until his death. For anyone who conceives Buddhism as some emotionally disconnected "practice of emptiness"...I was never so agonized by longing as I was during my longer sessions. My teacher comforted and encouraged me. It made the longing bearable, so that the practice could go on. Incidentally, I entered my own home after the talk and received the shock of my life. Since I had left the Catholic Church in my late teens, with much suffering, I had begun to collect statues, some quite large. With the jolt from my encounter with the Zen teacher, I recognized...Oh my God. All these statues are...Buddhist. Every one of them was a buddha or bodhisattva, as I learned from reading and looking at images. The figures apart from a label had drawn me nearly magnetically. At times when I bought, I had no money to buy, but somehow I dis.. These purchases dwindled after I began work with my teacher. Dwindled, not ended, such was the impulsion of my longing.

[@jimboheadspace1788]

I am a McGilchrist fan boy who was checking out my guy. This little hobbit needs to be more listened to. I think I will start a fan club.

[@jimboheadspace1788]

@Praxis Of Logos hey Praxis, heads up bro. JimBo is fixing a launch this bitch, if dreams come true . The promotion of McGilchrist the Wise and his work will undergird my content, "JimBo HeadSpace".

[@bookchaser1103]

Riock on.

[@tracik1277]

I’m down.

[@finneganmcbride6224]

Sign me up!

[@marielloyd8594]

Do it!

[@kaiven2429]

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.

[@skemsen]

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.

[@yoshihorror1948]

Dr*

[@RJ-cs9gz]

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)

[@marielloyd8594]

Well put. I 'm a Mahayana, Zen breed.

[@leryanburrey3185]

Aeternitis and Longing...(Big “L” or ‘El’ in Latin)...go on!

[@leryanburrey3185]

Ah! Wings. Witty.

[@trishrogers7928]

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

[@rabbitholehomes]

22:48 - not like Wretched Dawkins

[@markdelepine2772]

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

[@grainofsand4176]

This is rather long wait, but there is a transcript in the title description. There are 2 little up down arrows on your right to click and it shows transcript button. Click that and you have one- it may not have been there when you asked, but if not hope this helps

[@TamsenEnglish]

Wow, the people in the audience are very annoying.

[@abecadlo66]

Why?

[@marcolin7721]

They actually provide the best critical questions I've seen so far on McGilchrist's talks. I don't think it's good to take the 'resistance' presented by these questions as bad or annoying, as they in fact reveal both the solid grounds as well as the directions to further explore, for his work. Personally, I think the most important criticism, is the emphasis on brain lateralisation as primary, in light of how the best and most interesting implications of McGilchrist, do not primarily follow from the neurological basis even if it provides it empirical foundations. Rather, it's the fundamental system of functional polarities/complementarities (and the imperative of their balanced relation, for all systems that are sentient and/or composed of sentient constituents) that he has (re)discovered. But full disclosure I am biased, because I share a similar view arrived at from a formalism, where its manifestation in neurocognition is a natural consequence and corroboration of the significance of these complementarities, rather than the axiom to build upon from.

[@MrRedzwild]

@@marcolin7721 Sir, this is a Wendy's...

[@plekkchand]

@@marcolin7721 Why do you assume it is their resistance which the OP considers annoying, rather than what is much more likely, their inability to express their meaning clearly, and their going on, nevertheless, to tyrannize the consciousness of the group with their performance of conceptual groping? "Actually " in your first sentence is interesting- it seems a bit of rhetoric- a little linguibot to secure acceptance of what remains to be proven- to indicate that what follows is a revelation of the truth- of the "actual" - which we expect to find in subsequent sentences. But I am not sure that "actually" is completely earned, for the next sentence is a straw man, as I have remarked above, and contains another promise- "in fact" which makes us wait, once again, for your revelation of the truth to us- this time of the fact that it is the audience questions which somehow disclose solid grounds (of what?) And then suddenly, in the next sentence is dominated by the qualification of its first word " Personally..", and we are deprived of the promised revelation. And then we have a tortured syntax, and question begging, and the gravamen of your comment, which I believe is quite compelling. What are the "best and most interesting implications" of McGilchrist? as an example of the latter.(according to whom, anyway?) And in grappling with the former, the best I can come up with is what seems to me your main point, which is potentially quite valid indeed- a valuable objection to McGilchrist's overemphasis on lateralization-but one might expect that from such an obviously well-informed poster such as you it could be expressed more clearly! The last sentence is a parsing nightmare - the best I can do is " the manifestation of a formalism in neurocognition is a natural consequence of the significance of [the complimentarities you have mentioned earlier]- it - here we have to hope that the antecedent is the only available one- so here we go again: the manifestation of a formalism in neurocognition - that is the "it", that is the subject of the predicate- this manifestation is NOT the axiom to "build upon from"- the last three words do not folllow the rules of English, so I have to presume you mean to "build upon". In reduced row echelon form we finally arrive at " the manifestation of a formalism in neurocognition is not an axiom to build on , [rather, this manifestation] is a natural consequence of the significance of [the complimentarities you have mentioned earlier. And since I cannot arrive at a clear idea of resolving a "manifestation of formalism" in an axiom, of all things, I must give up trying to comprehend your meaning. In short, I can only wish that someone like you who has so much to offer the general public had taken more care to express themselves with clarity, rather than jargon. Of course, you are under no obligation to do so, but then one must ask why you would post in the first place.

[@marcolin7721]

@@plekkchand ​ oh wow I've never received such an in depth analysis of a youtube comment I made, I feel surprisingly flattered! I don't know how serious you were, but for what it's worth, I think I assumed the annoyance to refer to the audience's resistance to McGilchrist simply because because I shared a similar sentiment towards the audience - but I accept I might just have been projecting (or misremembering now). Similarly, the "actually" that follows reflects my own thought process of going past that sentiment of annoyance and synthesising the different views/polarities in the video. If you were serious and wanted a serious response to the rest, let me know! Sorry for having subjected you to my mess of a youtube comment to parse :p

[@trishrogers7928]

This discussion sounds very left brainwash! x

[@marielloyd8594]

Not Iain himself of course, but some commentary was a little left-brained for me....I didn't persist with the viewing.