Ep 76 | UTOKing with Matt Segall and Bonnitta Roy | Processing Process Ontology

[@williamjmccartan8879]

Really happy to see your subscriber numbers going up Gregg, thank you for sharing your time and work, Bonnita, Matthew, and Gregg, peace

[@54johndavis]

The chapter on Kant is worth struggling through as Matt brings forth a new vibe around the late Opus Postuhumous. Matt enacts a new kind of relationship to the hermetic sources , rubbing, Whtehead, Delueze and Steiner together and getting a joyful rush. Strange bedfellows. We are sweeping out the stuffy library, opening the windows, and enjoying the fresh metaphysical air. The etheric imagination is reallly real. And then what happens? The Astral. And it don't mean a thing if it aint got that swing.

[@GimleyFarb]

It's important not to miss that the usual way of assuming perception is it's own metaphysics which is why I like Gendlin who makes it clear that perception is AFTER experience and not the reverse.

[@davidorth7217]

I wish Gendlin was more appreciated in the process community. His attention to Whitehead's vague felt sense it's so important to me as an artist and as an animal. His phrases like the implicit intricacy and his attention to how we can begin to unpack the implicit.

[@throughhumaneyes7648]

Everyone went hard in this one, dope chat

[@willgiorno1740]

Lovely cultural repair work, thankyou! It would be so interesting to include a seriously contemplative (ie hours of contemplative silence each day etc) monk/nun in these conversations. I suspect some of them have been living the territory of this discussion for (at least) the past 100 years and may enrich the discussion greatly. I suspect silence and love access 'knowledges' very important to furthering the discourse/experience you are exploring here.

[@telekatron]

Belief, self doubt, intuition, faith and curiosity are like particles if we are bound to using them for any empirical data.

[@projectmalus]

Awesome!

[@willgiorno1740]

❤

[@STUNGBYSPLENDOR]

Thank you for sharing this amazingly fertilizing conversation!Monocultural Propositional (western navel gazing) epistemologies are pesticidal zero sum games, instrumentalized Reductionist metaphysics. As the poet, musician and philosopher Jan Zwicky writes: “Things are, and are not, as they seem.” Fascinated by the ‘are not,’ we frequently skip over the ‘are’ - and it is this tendency or impulse that is at the root of metaphysical reductionism, the idea that incompatible appearances must always be the result of a failure, or an inability, to a end to some ‘deeper’ reality.

[@MrGroovequest]

Descendental?! ...Is hilarious and good. 1:19:32 "it's not abstractions that explain the concrete. It's the concrete that explains the abstract" into Bonnitta on Appearances and Aesthetics is excellent.

[@polymathpark]

I feel like by using the term "mytho-poetic" here we're trying to avoid saying "romantic notions."

[@jtrudel7747]

I’m surprised how Bonnie seems comfortable with the word Cosmology.

[@amandahabka3548]

[@projectmalus]

The experience as languages with elements of trade, family and sacred; displayed as objects as interaction set dynamic and cohesive series, 2^2, 2^3, 2^5 where the trade etc languages are proportioned. Not as scientific materialism corrupted in one of these language elements, forming another type of object that is relative moving, because it's sequestered as in material or availability for other players: two areas, 1-5 and 6-10, each containing elements of the other. Scientific materialism as 2^2, 3^2, 5^2 where the higher ontological position of the measuring instrument is lost. So going wrong in proportioning is something like messing with the exponents, if elements of trade, family and sacred are all in objects then it's like voltage and current, where if one goes up then one goes down, scientific materialism high on the sacred language while the family language is bound into human resource departments and trade (with the rest of the intelligence affording object) almost non-existent. The knowledge as object replaces the life as object because it uses the energy while not sharing.

[@kvaka009]

Respectfully, I've seen your posts several times in videos featuring Dr. Segall and I've tried to read and understand them. However, despite you obviously trying to say something significant, it reads like word salad. It is incomprehensible. It would be interesting to see your thoughts actually articulated in a coherent way. I hope you don't take offense.

[@projectmalus]

@@kvaka009 coherent to the human or coherent to the world? In the latter case I wouldn't be here. In the former case, I wouldn't want to infringe on others' responsibility. No offense taken, have a great day.

[@kvaka009]

@projectmalus as in I can't make out the meaning and logical connections of your thoughts, though I have a strong sense that I might like to. What does "coherent to the world" mean? And why wouldn't you be here if it was? And why would you be infringing on my responsibility if your words were coherent for humans? I'm sincerely bamboozled. Either you are speaking in riddles to disguise your thoughts or you are not saying much at all and hiding the fact behind overly elaborate wording. I don't know which, but at the moment you appear to be speaking only to yourself. And in that case, why write anything at all?

[@projectmalus]

@@kvaka009 the difference is how we each perceive objects perhaps. I perceive something that if I try to grasp the object, it's simplified so I must allow it instead of asserting it...the allowing and asserting is how the language proportion happens, with non-object self allowing objects which asserts self, the dynamic cohesive as the exponent series as object.

[@kvaka009]

@@projectmalus ok. Your words still make very little sense. It seems intentional on your part. You don't seem to want to be understood. I won't try anymore. Good luck