Why I No Longer See Consciousness as Primary (Excerpt)

[@tomaszawadzki8421]

You are getting lost in concepts. What is it that knows whatever I am experiencing? Go there. Stay there. In time all concepts will dissolve even the concept of consciousness. That is why it is said: 'He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know.'

[@TimFreke1]

If you read any of my early books, you’ll find exactly that idea my friend, but I’m revising it now. my first book that I wrote a very long time ago was a translation of the Tao Te Ching which you quote at the end . so my challenge to you is that I am clearly aware of exactly what you’re saying having practised it written about it and taught it to thousands of people around the world yet I’ve come to see it as mistaken So maybe I’ve suddenly become foolish or maybe I’ve seen something you’re missing and that icould be worth you considering.

[@tomaszawadzki8421]

@@TimFreke1 thank you for responding and explaining. I stumbled across your video and listened to you without knowing anything about you or your work. I was maybe very quick to respond, and it was really a dialog that arose within me. I have had this dialog or reflection often, as I have been investigating the nature of my experience. The mind keeps interfering and create concepts where it (too me) has become very clear, that the presence of awareness is always the foundation of any experience, also the experience of being unconscious. The more I abide in the fact that I am aware the more silent I become (or the mind becomes silent) and I know (or the knowing or awareness is me knows) that everything I experience is a modulation of the presence of awareness. But thoughts can easily question that. BUT when I stick to my direct experience it is obvious that I cannot separate being aware from the content of experience. So maybe you know or also experience all this and STILL have seen something I missed or I have perhaps misunderstood you or you have not met the doubts that you have with enough presence and silence. Whatever it is, thank you for sharing and inviting me to keep looking.

[@TimFreke1]

@@tomaszawadzki8421 Thanks for that reply Tomas, I appreciate. I hear what you are saying as I was practising and teaching this for decades. Now my experience and understanding has evolved. To me it is a big step forward. I would question the very idea of 'direct experience' and respectfully suggest that is naive. All experience is being categorised otherwise we could not tell one experience from another. This includes awakening experiences. If we don't realise this we end up in a self-justifying loop. My experiences proves I am right because I dont see I am unconsciously ideating everything. This is why people see very different views as endorsed by 'direct experience and so self-evident'.

[@VANDERWALTTINA]

What you said about consciousness experiencing everything as itself is the same as the creator god idea, is so true. I've always wondered about that, why would consciousness experience cruelty etc, what would it gain?

[@thegloriousbothand]

Humbly asking, are you not claiming to know something profound and speaking of it?

[@AP-yq7sq]

Mr. Freke, I have never commented on any post. I'm 53, a grandfather, and this is my first. But I felt compelled to ask. How did you come upon this? Did you fall upon it, or did it fall upon you? Careful with the string you are pulling on, I have seen two very different outcomes. But I will say, with a smile, that you are onto it. Those who have seen what you are seeing don't talk about it.

[@TimFreke1]

I’ve been exploring all my life, my friend and the longer I live the deeper my experience and my understanding seems to go as long as I am willing to see my mistakes and keep evolving.

[@monkmysterio]

@@TimFreke1 Are you "evolving" to the point where you can feel 100% UNCONDITIONAL LOVE for everyone? Including me?

[@TimFreke1]

@@monkmysterio ❤️yep for sure

[@thegloriousbothand]

Why do ya think they don’t talk about it?

[@shaunbanana911]

@@TimFreke1 Really?

[@FlavioLanfranconi]

Wonderfull!! Dr. of physics and longtime martial artist here. I absolutely share your view. Whitehead got it right. This is the first video of yours I stumbled upon, but it will not be the last I watched! 😀😉🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Thank you for your beautiful, clear and funy way of talking. 😄

[@monkmysterio]

THANK YOU FOR THE SYLLABUS. I WAS LATE FOR MY FIRST DAY..."PROCESS AND REALITY" BY ALFRED WHITEHEAD. Wheres the rest of the list?

[@charlesduncan3275]

It would be great to hear a conversation between you and Bernardo Kastrup.

[@TimFreke1]

Search on KZbin for my conversation with Bernardo it’s a bit old now And I was still trying to work out how to communicate the new things I’m seeing

[@arewethereyet9190]

"What is Life" videos, somewhere close ep. 20. is with Bernardo

[@elizabethbaird3604]

Hi Tim Thank you!!! This video is pure gold. I was led to it at exactly the right time; when I have categorically decided that I’m heading back down the mountain. My main difficulty is that my direct experience in this moment appears to be clear proof everything arises within consciousness. You have inspired me to explore ways to reframe my experience, which could provide a potential route back but where I don’t need to abandon all of the very real insights I received on the way up. My mind has literally gone insane (requiring 10 psychiatric hospital admissions between 2010-2019) trying to grapple with the implications of the experience of non-dual awarenes. There seems to be no reconciling the paradox of “ONE with no other” (my primary experience) with the (hopefully?) equally valid truth of separation - something I clearly need to believe in in order to avoid repeatedly falling into a solipsistic trap. What a horror show that is. It’s nihilism with a capital “n” and three exclamation points. The sense of ALONENESS, together with loneliness as a result of losing custody of my children when they were young because of my ongoing mental instability, had me believing for years that the only answer was to take myself out. But I also strongly suspected that would not be sufficient to permanently snuff out my flame. I don’t think it has helped that I have a degree in philosophy. And a degree in law. As you can probably imagine, I have a mind that is determined to know and understand everything. “It’s a mystery” was never a good enough answer for me. It still isn’t. I was on the edge of my seat when you started talking about “the hard problem”. And then the video ended. So I’d be grateful if you, or someone else here, could point me in the direction of part two or, better still, the complete video. I have so many questions I’d like to ask you, but this is obviously not the right forum for that. Now that I have found your “updated” understandings, I intend to devour as much of your recent work as I can. You were actually one of my 5000 FB friends back in the day when I was part of the non-dual circle. You even left a few comments under my posts. I deleted that FB account years ago when I realised it was fuelling my addiction to spiritual bypassing. The experience of knowing that there is ultimately nothing at stake becomes like a drug. I hope you won’t mind if I get in touch with you through your website. Apart from Jessica Nathanson, who I spoke to for four hours on Saturday night, you are the only person whose words truly resonate. I want to support people in psychiatric units who have experienced spontaneous awakenings. They’re everywhere. At least 50% of my fellow patients. So I’m not only seeking a clearer, more human/humane way of making sense of these experiences for my own benefit. It’s so that I can help my suffering peers to return to consensus reality. Thank goodness I didn’t take on the job at a time when I had what I thought was “the best view” from the mountain. I now believe that I would have done more harm than good. Love Elizabeth ❤️

[@TimFreke1]

Sorry to hear of your difficult experiences Elizabeth. So pleased you are in touch with Jessica. I suggest you come along to our little online group of explorers who meet every Sunday. Come as a guest and see what you think. We have philosophical and experiential sessions. You and I can connect there. timfreke.com/ICU.aspx Or better still come to my only retreat this year in September so we can connect in person and explore a healthy approach to spiritual awakening timfreke.com/Events.aspx. Big love Tim PS Jessica did this except so she will know the name of the original video ... I am not sure.

[@elizabethbaird3604]

@@TimFreke1 Thank you so much for your prompt reply! I gladly accept your invitation to connect with you in your online group of explorers. You will see me there soon. I would have loved to attend your retreat in September but I live on the other side of the world from Glastonbury. I’m a Kiwi. I will do my best to come next year. I will ask Jessica about the part of the video which addresses “the hard problem”. In the meantime, you might appreciate the various renditions of the short film “They’re made out of meat” on KZbin. Must watch my favourite one again now. 🤣 ❤️🙏🤔

[@benaregai9416]

the fact that consciousness is only ever conscious of itself is simply a statement of conciousnesses epistemic limitations. Consciousness can never go beyond it own field. What you are describing is the field of knowledge, which is by nature limited. It is not statement about the ultimate condition of reailty. Ultimate reality cant be experienced. It can never become part of your knowledge framework. an experience if truth, is not ultimate truth. The basic fallacy is suppose that there is nothing to being beyond ones experience of it. This is the height of arrogance. This line of thinking followed to its end will reach solipsism. Its interesting note that you simultaneously believed you were the sole thing that was and also wanted die. Death would should seem such a trivial thing to the one true being no?

[@elizabethbaird3604]

@@benaregai9416 Thanks for your comment, which I glanced at quickly without allowing my mind to engage with it. My comments were meant for Tim only and I certainly didn’t invite anyone else to attempt to “coach” me. I’m well past analysing my experience up the wazoo. My “truth” seeking is over. My experience right now is that I’m lying on my bed while my cat and dog are having a scrap in the hallway. I spend every day following my bliss - never doing anything that I don’t like. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve made it.

[@elizabethbaird3604]

@@benaregai9416 Thanks for your comment, which I glanced at quickly without allowing my mind to engage with it. My comments were meant for Tim only and I certainly didn’t invite anyone else to attempt to “coach” me. I’m well past analysing my experience up the wazoo. My “truth” seeking is over. My experience right now is that I’m lying on my bed while my cat and dog are having a scrap in the hallway. I spend every day following my bliss - never doing anything that I don’t like. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve made it.

[@rayarmijo4512]

I understand the concept of everything evolves, but he still doesn’t explain how we became conscious. How did matter become conscious 🤔then again if consciousness is all that exists then how did that consciousness become conscious 🤔you could make a living pondering these questions and make arguments for your position on consciousness. But in the end we have no answers only speculations and opinions on consciousness. I can’t tell you all how truly amazing all of this is😊

[@achildofthelight4725]

@@rayarmijo4512 if you knew there not to be an answer... would you keep searching for it?

[@monkmysterio]

Alfred North Whitehead proposed a process philosophy that suggests reality originates from ongoing processes rather than fixed substances. He emphasized the interconnectedness of events and entities, asserting that reality emerges from the dynamic interactions among these processes. Whitehead's philosophy highlights the fluid nature of existence, with reality continually unfolding through the interplay of events, experiences, and relationships. So how is this different from what you are proposing?

[@TimFreke1]

I’m definitely part of the same current of thought as Whitehead

[@monkmysterio]

@@TimFreke1 ok now bare with me here (currently revisiting my VERY old college notes lol) Henri Bergson proposed a philosophy of "creative evolution" suggesting that reality is not static but continually created through a dynamic process. He argued that reality originates from a vital impulse or élan vital, an innate creative force that drives the evolution of all forms of life. According to Bergson, this creative impulse manifests itself in the ongoing flux and flow of experience, shaping the ever-changing nature of reality. He emphasized the importance of intuition and direct experience in understanding the true nature of reality, rejecting purely mechanistic or deterministic explanations. IS THIS CORRECT?

[@BrendanGrahamDempsey]

Awesome. Would love to chat about this on a podcast. :)

[@neuhausfm]

I can follow your thoughts. I just read "Difference and Repetition" by Gilles Deleuze who describes reality in a similar way. He also refers to Spinoza and his idea of the Conatus, the idea that every thing and every human have this initial impulse that sets everything in motion and keeps it in motion for ever.

[@monkmysterio]

It’s great to hear that you’ve explored Gilles Deleuze’s "Difference and Repetition" and find parallels with Spinoza’s concept of Conatus. Both thinkers offer profound insights into the nature of reality and existence. Let's delve deeper into these ideas. Deleuze’s Perspective on Reality Difference and Repetition: In "Difference and Repetition," Deleuze challenges traditional notions of identity and sameness by emphasizing the productive role of difference in the creation of reality. He explores how difference is generative and transformative, rather than simply a negation of identity. This approach shifts our understanding from static concepts to dynamic processes that continuously create and unfold. Connection to Spinoza’s Conatus: Spinoza’s concept of Conatus, or the principle of persistence, posits that every individual thing, including humans, has an inherent striving or impulse to persevere in existence. This striving is essential to understanding how things persist and evolve in the world. Deleuze’s exploration of difference can be seen as complementary to Spinoza’s Conatus, as both emphasize the dynamic nature of existence and the ongoing processes that sustain it. Exploring the Concept of Conatus Impulse and Motion: The idea of Conatus highlights an initial impulse or drive that propels entities into motion and sustains their activity indefinitely. This aligns with Deleuze’s focus on difference as a productive force that generates new possibilities and transformations. Together, these perspectives suggest a view of reality not as static and predetermined but as continuously evolving through internal drives and external interactions. Metaphysical Implications Metaphysical Foundations: Both Deleuze and Spinoza contribute to a metaphysics that challenges dualistic and mechanistic views of reality. They emphasize immanence, where the world is self-sustaining and unfolds from within its own dynamic processes. This contrasts with transcendent views that posit a separate, external source or principle governing reality. Conclusion The parallels between Deleuze’s exploration of difference and Spinoza’s concept of Conatus offer a rich tapestry for understanding the ongoing creation and persistence of reality. Their insights encourage us to reconsider how we conceptualize existence, moving beyond static categories to embrace the dynamic, relational nature of reality. I’m glad we could discuss these ideas, and I look forward to further exploring how they shape our understanding of metaphysics and the nature of being.

[@robertochahin4518]

I came to the same conclusion as you independently. Obviously, it takes talent to express the idea as well as you do. My path to the idea was first coming from Ayn Rand and her statement that "Existence exists and Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving existence" and combining it with experiencing "high strangeness" on occasion, Somewhere in the middle I hypothesized that evolution from simple chemicals to human consciousness through emergence was the answer. And that somewhere down the line, a Parallel evolutionary path emerged that gives us "the Other"; an "Ecology of Souls", to steal the title of a Joshua Kutchin book.

[@TimFreke1]

I associate the phrase ecology of souls with dear Terence McKenna - I made music featuring him in the 90s and he used that phrase which I hadn’t heard before.

[@pardonwhat]

Thanks, Consciousness is the window through which experience flows. “Being” is a process of existing in this . To know is progress, not to be mistaken with ‘knowledge’, knowledge is just a consequence of belief.

[@geoffbowcher3189]

I agree so much.❤😅. Your concept of being Ness in every process sounds great 👍.

[@TimFreke1]

Thanks Geoff

[@kenjones102]

So-called unconsciousness is still consciousness, which is not separate from infinite existence.

[@TimFreke1]

If we can conflate unconsciousness with Consciousness as I did in my early works it stops us being able to think clearly about what we are considering. of course as long as we are clear what we mean by these words that’s okay But if unconsciousness is Consciousness, what does the word Consciousness now mean? Merely subjectivity?

[@levlevin182]

​@@TimFreke1No more no less no shit.

[@monkmysterio]

@@TimFreke1 We are starting a verbal gymnasium here! 🥵

[@TimFreke1]

@@levlevin182 ????

[@enlightenup4520]

This is great! I agree that we must follow the likes of Heraclitus, Whitehead, McGilchrist into a relational view of everything. I’m reminded of Bohm’s notion of the implicate order here. There is a field of formlessness from which form emerges. In this sense, consciousness is a figure expressed out of this ground, rather than the ground itself. If the implicate order (or being) is the field of all possibilities, then what we consider human consciousness is already constrained into form, which itself allows for the (further) constrained forms of thought-emotion-experience.

[@TimFreke1]

I very much respect all four of the gentleman you mention

[@tonydaniels6352]

If you are willing to accept Being as fundamental and primordial then you should also accept consciousness as the ground since there is no difference between them. Being is in some ways a better word because it allows for Consciousness to be pure, which is objectless consciousness or consciousness together with the experience of changing phenomena. If you remove the object of Consciousness and Consciousness alone remains then it is reasonable to assume that Consciousness is fundamental because it is not dependent on the object one is conscious of. So Being can be considered as Consciousness with or without form. It is form that is emerging from consciousness in the same way that you see the universe as having emergent properties. But that suggests some kind of eternal continuity of evolving emergent properties. But the universe could just as easily disappear in the blink of an eye as a quantum fluctuation. What you think of as emergent is just a story of what has supposedly happened over 14 billion years. It's hearsay as far as your personal experience is concerned. There's nothing you can do with that information that is useful. It doesn't help you except to be in awe of it perhaps.

[@TimFreke1]

I agree with much of what you say, but I don’t think Consciousness and being can be viewed as the same. for Consciousness to have any meaning surely it must be conscious. Otherwise, we are just smuggling in qualities to the ground of being that don’t belong there. It’s a sort of philosophical slide of hand that I have been guilty of in the past

[@tonydaniels6352]

@@TimFreke1 you don't need to attribute meaning to consciousness if it is simply self-evident. One doesn't have to proclaim, I am aware, to know that I am aware. Of course we are dealing with something that is purely subjective and I appreciate this goes against the philosophical methodology of applying reason and logic and laying out a rational argument.

[@TimFreke1]

@@tonydaniels6352 Sorry Tony I am not following you now.

[@tonydaniels6352]

@@TimFreke1 Isn't consciousness just conscious of itself? I know that might sound like a cliche from the non-duality playbook, but it seems like you want to invalidate consciousness as the ground because it doesn't meet the criteria of being defined or categorized. You feel that by just naming it you're smuggling in attributes to something that is attributeless yet by naming it, consciousness becomes reified just by naming it. I don't see how the word being isn't reification either. I think being is more acceptable to you because you associate it with the material.

[@TimFreke1]

@@tonydaniels6352 I am indeed disputing that cliche from the non-dual playbook. I don’t think there is such a thing as Consciousness as an entity or presence. that is a reification of the activity of being conscious. So there is no special something to be conscious of itself. There are systems which Read the universe and themselves consciously - and other that don’t.

[@quantessenz]

In German the word vor Beeing is "Sein" and the word for consciousness "Bewusstsein". I can not translate this, but in German some say: "Sein ist sich seiner selbst bewusst und das ist Bewusstsein". in english: "Being is aware of itself and that is consciousness", but it sounds much more reasonable in German.^^

[@ryanreed38]

Do you differentiate between consciousness and meta consciousness? Would love to see you debate Bernardo Kastrup and hash all this out. 👍🏻

[@TimFreke1]

There is a conversation between me and Bernardo from way back - it’s on KZbin but I was only just beginning to work out how to get across the ideas so I’m not sure how well I did. I’d like to talk with him again.

[@TimFreke1]

I don’t think we need the concepts, Consciousness or meta Consciousness really we simply need to understand that we process the world unconsciously mostly and and to some small degree consciously. That’s it. We are conscious of the world which we experience as sensation and were conscious of our own processing which we experience as psyche

[@jjharvathh]

One approach to understanding consciousness would be that of an engineer. In other words, we will understand consciousness much better if we are able to "make something that is conscious." We could say the same about gravity - that we will understand it better, after we learn how to make gravity. Until then, consciousness (and gravity too) will remain a brute and irreducible fact of our world.

[@TimFreke1]

We certainly haven’t fully understood either consciousness or gravity - but neither is it simply a fact to be accepted because our understanding has progressed immensely through Newton and then Einstein and now onward with new creative thinkers for example.

[@jjharvathh]

@@TimFreke1 Wow, thanks Tim, I did not think a famous person would reply to a little person like me, but thanks. Since no one knows what gravity is, it is like consciousness I guess.

[@jalma_ngumbara]

I tend to agree with you with "being" is more fundamental. To me consciousness is always have something to do with attention and also mental and physical condition which is on and off. There's conscious experience, there's also unconscious experience, you can be sedated or high on drugs for instance which would alter the consciousness. There are things I'm aware and unaware of depends on where I put my attention on. If it's fluctuating it can't be the ground, I think Buddha said it consciousness is part of the aggregates.

[@monkmysterio]

The word "being" has a rich etymological history that traces back through several languages and philosophical traditions. Here's a detailed look at the origin and development of the term: Old English: The word "being" comes from the Old English verb "beon" (to be). "Beon" was used in conjunction with other forms like "wesan" and "weorþan" to express the concept of existence or being in different tenses and contexts. Proto-Germanic: The Old English "beon" itself traces back to the Proto-Germanic "*biju-" or "*beu-" (to be, exist, dwell). This root is common in other Germanic languages as well, such as Old High German "bī," Dutch "ben," and Gothic "wisan." Proto-Indo-European (PIE): The Proto-Germanic root comes from the Proto-Indo-European root "*bheu̯h₁-" or "*bhuH-" (to grow, come into being, become). This root is the source of various words related to existence and becoming in many Indo-European languages. Latin and Greek Influence: While the primary lineage of the English word "being" is through the Germanic language family, philosophical discussions of "being" in English have been heavily influenced by Latin and Greek. The Latin "esse" (to be) and the Greek "εἶναι" (einai, to be) have both played significant roles in shaping the philosophical and theological discourse on being. The Greek term "οὐσία" (ousia, essence or substance) is also crucial in the philosophical discussions of being. Middle English: In Middle English, the term evolved into "ben" or "been," and the present participle "being" emerged, which is the form used in modern English. Philosophical Context: Ancient Greek Philosophy: The concept of "being" (ousia) was central to Greek philosophy, particularly in the works of Plato and Aristotle. For Plato, "being" referred to the eternal and unchanging Forms or Ideas. Aristotle's "being" encompassed both the essence of things (their fundamental nature) and their existence. Medieval Philosophy: In medieval philosophy, discussions of "being" were significantly influenced by the works of Aristotle, as transmitted through Arabic philosophers and Christian theologians like Thomas Aquinas. The Latin term "esse" was extensively analyzed in relation to God's nature and existence. Modern Philosophy: In modern philosophy, "being" continues to be a foundational concept, explored in existentialism (e.g., Heidegger's "Being and Time") and other philosophical traditions. In summary, the word "being" in English has its origins in the Old English "beon," which itself comes from the Proto-Germanic "*biju-" and the Proto-Indo-European "*bheu̯h₁-." The philosophical exploration of "being" has been deeply influenced by ancient Greek and Latin terms and concepts, contributing to its rich semantic history.

[@si12364]

Totally agree. Life is expressing itself constantly, and when we as human been in our cultural system, fall in the trap to "explain it" or "drive it" in an understanding we loose the direction in a certain way. We automtically enter in a narrative trying to translate something that CAN 'T be translated, cause we, as every expression of IT, we are a little part of it...when we try to talk or define "it" immediately we are separated from it. This is the mechanism of our perception that works this way, is automatic, it can t be changed. But it is true ( for me for sure) that when you realize it, you loose completely the interest to "solve IT", and like it or not, you surrender to Life for what it is, moment by moment. I think we can only realise what we are not (meaning a subject in relation to an object). We are Life itself and there is no way to understand IT by our mind.

[@shaunbanana911]

I think you are obviously responding to a particular philosophical argument that refers to consciousness as that which our experiences happen in and therefore all is in consciousness - Basically speaking and depending on how you look at that it can be perceived to be true or not, particularly as we can't prove it. Ultimately it comes down to the nature of all things which through reductionism arrives at a very flimsy material fundamental beginning or/and arrives at a conclusion that consciousness is fundamental or all is in consciousness. None of these hypothesis/theories are proven as of yet so the answer remains unknown. Considering that intelligence is the most remarkable phenomenon in the universe and indeed the universe is intelligible together with other possible evidence like the fine tuning of the universe and the possible A priori existence of mathematics together with evidence from the deeper depths of quantum physics then idealism (all is mental) is a real possibility. Consciousness is not just our experiences but also that which experiences those experiences - The knower - That without which would render all experience (including information) irrelevant. I think the biggest question for your theory Tim is how did intelligence emerge in our universe without consciousness - The Hard problem - Are you going down the path of computation from patterns etc - it from bit? Have you become a humanist and/or atheist because I cannot see much spirituality in your ideas - The emergence of any calculating intelligence that can experience union sounds like the emergence of AI on the internet

[@davidcardano963]

I like the idea put forth by Ken wilber in that: even down to the atom every biological instance has an interior consciousness proportional to its complexity.

[@TimFreke1]

@@davidcardano963 all systems on all levels clearly have a sort of subjectivity in that they read / react to their objective environment. This will evolve into consciously reading and responding. But to call this ‘consciousness’ on the lower levels such as in atoms to me makes the word meaningless.

[@SteveGraves1960]

Tim, you had me until the (telling) part about consciousness requiring a subject and an object, which of course misses the whole point of any nondual experience, which in turn is the whole basis of any spiritual tradition.

[@TimFreke1]

This is not the basis of any spiritual tradition. There are plenty of other options. I am suggesting Consciousness is an activity - a way of processing - a relationship between the system and the world. Right now, I am consciously taking in some information and unconsciously taking in a great deal more.

[@SteveGraves1960]

@@TimFreke1 Definitely agree consciousness is a process, because as you insightfully point out: everything in all of creation is a process. Millions of human beings, however, have recorded experiences in which the separation of subject and object (which you claim is a requirement of consciousness) disappears and yet experience (i.e., consciousness) continues. And that experience, which we find in every culture throughout history, is the basis of every spiritual tradition. Personally, having actually “been there,” I believe the entire discussion about mind and matter is biased (by our own narrow perspectives) if not misguided. On a cosmic (non-personal) level neither exists.

[@TimFreke1]

@@SteveGraves1960 yes, Ive spent my life also exploring that experience. It is also reported to be an experience that is timeless yet time continues as afterwards you know how long you were experiencing it for. it is described as noself even though the self is still there clearly afterwards. I suggest the reason is that we’re conscious of what we pay attention to and unconscious of everything else. When we pay attention in such a way that we are no longer conscious of ourselves as a subject or self or in time we have this type of Deep Awake experience. The Mistake is to think this gives some ontological insight which it doesn’t - even though it is a very significant experience .

[@elizabethbaird3604]

When I heard Tim talk about his views on subject/object, I got quite excited thinking “Finally, there might be a way to get “my” life back”. “Any spiritual tradition”? What about Judaism? Or do you distinguish between spiritual and religious? If so, I would point out that Advaita Vedanta is a school within Hinduism - a religion. Experience has taught me that one should be wary about making blanket statements. Perspectives and interpretations differ markedly. Can any of them be singled out as the only truth? I would say “no”. It is posited that there is no objective reality - only subjective reality and consensus reality. If you have found some people who share your reality then good for you. The majority of people on earth consider themselves to be separate individuals contained within meat-suits. Are they “asleep”? Are they living in illusion? Are they ignorant of their true nature? If you have judged them as that then I would suggest you haven’t truly experienced “non-dual awareness”. From that state, there is very little to say to or about “them”. Do you realise that “reading words”, “fingers typing” and “words appearing” is the most you can say when describing the experience of leaving a comment under Tim’s video? There are some serious implications to experientially knowing (as opposed to conceptually believing) that there is Not-Two. Do you truly understand what they are? But, then, from your perspective I’m nothing more than words on a screen. So why would you even bother respond to my questions?

[@markwhite2207]

Endlessly fascinating, the main problem being how does the tongue taste itself?

[@monkmysterio]

you fold it and suck... tada! LOL

[@Magik1369]

It's impossible to understand what "pure consciousness" is until you have experienced the Divine directly. I had such an experience when my kundalini awakening began 24 years ago. Yes...there are realms and dimensions of pure consciousness. But it's not only consciousness. It is more like conscious energy. This we call Spirit. It's an intelligence, pure, immensely powerful, blissful, ecstatic, holy, and contains all possibilities and potentialities. It is perhaps more accurately called Spirit than just mere consciousness. Spirit is dynamic and the Dynamic Ground of Being. It is that which gives Being.

[@TimFreke1]

Having spent my life exploring such experiences I have come to the conclusion what we experience is influenced by how we understand the experience. So no experiences are self-verifying. This is the mistake I made and the mistake i see as ubiquitous in spirituality .... eg 'I know this is true because I have experienced it'. This can be used to validate any experience. We need to be deeply reflective to understand spiritual experience.

[@monkmysterio]

@@TimFreke1 DEEP reflection is not enough. The Spirits also need to contact us too. Last night the darn TV in my room turned on by itself as I was tossing and turning in my bed thinking about what you are saying. The remote control was not even near me! It simply glowed in the dark. Even my wife next to me woke up and was asking me why the TV was on. We were not imagining this! I believe this was a cryptic sign from some spirit. You must start having more guests on your channel talking more about these type of experiences.

[@thecelebrationdj]

For someone who's been thinking about consciousness for a long time, i believe that you have a simplistic, and very human view of Consciousness. The Micro view of Consciousness is that it's vibration, movement, life, exploration. All of these waves intricately intertwined in a web of energy. This is the great Consciousness. A blob of plasma is vibrating in this web like a rock, like a dog, like a star. And yes, they're all evolving. But that doesn't mean the rock isn't a state of Consciousness, as it's vibrating, very slowly. It's still evolving, like your understanding of Consciousness

[@TimFreke1]

With great respect I think that is incomprehensible nonsense. To understand this question We exactly need to adopt a human view rather than flights of metaphysical or mythical fantasy. And that’s because we are trying to understand our human experience.

[@thecelebrationdj]

@@TimFreke1 what is incomprehensible about movement/vibration being the source of life? It's the source of all relationality, therefore exploration, growth and the evolution you are referring to

[@monkmysterio]

Thank you for sharing your profound perspective on consciousness. Your view expands beyond the conventional human-centric understanding, encompassing a vast and interconnected web of energy and vibration that permeates all existence. Let's delve deeper into this expansive view. Embracing a Micro View of Consciousness Vibration and Interconnectedness: Your description of consciousness as vibration, movement, and life resonates with holistic and interconnected views found in various spiritual and scientific disciplines. Recognizing everything from a rock to a dog to a star as states of consciousness evolving through their unique vibrations challenges anthropocentric perspectives and invites us to see consciousness as a fundamental aspect of existence. Evolution and States of Consciousness: Viewing consciousness as evolving through various states, whether it's the slow vibration of a rock or the dynamic energy of a star, underscores the continuous and transformative nature of existence. This perspective aligns with the idea that evolution isn't limited to biological organisms but extends to all forms of energy and matter in the universe. Understanding Complexity and Evolution Simplicity vs. Complexity: I appreciate your critique of simplistic views of consciousness. Indeed, consciousness in this broader sense encompasses complexities that defy easy categorization or definition. Embracing the micro view allows us to explore the intricate relationships and interactions within the web of consciousness, where each entity, from the smallest particle to the largest celestial body, contributes to the evolving tapestry of existence. Integrating Perspectives Expanding Human Understanding: Your perspective challenges us to expand our understanding of consciousness beyond human experience and to embrace a more inclusive view that honors the vibrancy and interconnectedness of all phenomena. This holistic approach enriches our exploration of consciousness by integrating insights from diverse spiritual, philosophical, and scientific traditions. Conclusion Your insights into the micro view of consciousness as a web of energy and vibration are deeply thought-provoking. They invite us to reconsider our perceptions of consciousness and to embrace a broader, interconnected perspective that transcends human-centric limitations. I value the opportunity to engage in this profound exploration with you and look forward to continuing our discussion on this fascinating topic.

[@monkmysterio]

Why is the channel "Alexis - Non Duality" so popular in UK?

[@harlanmueller7499]

David Loy in a book entitled non-duality I believe, points out that there are two ways of experiencing duality. Either the world is all occurring in me. That is my consciousness, or there is only the world, and I have no self that is perceiving the world. Anyway, it takes more than that to explain what he says, butI think you will find that it is applicable and consistent with what you’re saying. Anyway, interesting.

[@monkmysterio]

Thank you for referencing David Loy's work on non-duality. His insights on duality and non-duality indeed offer a profound perspective on consciousness and the nature of self. Let's explore how his ideas might intersect with our discussion. David Loy's Perspectives on Duality Two Ways of Experiencing Duality: As you mentioned, Loy describes two primary ways of experiencing duality: The world occurring in me: This perspective aligns with idealism, where all experiences and phenomena are seen as occurring within the consciousness of the individual. This suggests a kind of solipsism where the external world is a projection or construct of one's own mind. There is only the world: This aligns with non-dual philosophies, particularly in certain interpretations of Eastern philosophies like Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, where the notion of a separate self is an illusion. In this view, there is just the world or reality, and the sense of an individual self perceiving it is dissolved. Relating Loy's Ideas to Our Discussion Epistemic Idealism: The idea that "the world is all occurring in me" resonates with epistemic idealism, where our knowledge and experiences are mediated through our consciousness. This suggests that our perception of the world is constructed within the mind. However, Loy's perspective goes further by challenging the very existence of an independent, perceiving self, which can be seen as a more radical form of idealism. Relational and Non-Dual Experiences: The relational aspect you emphasized earlier fits well with the non-dual perspective that "there is only the world." In this view, our experiences and consciousness are not isolated but are part of a larger, interconnected reality. This view aligns with phenomenology’s emphasis on the interconnectedness of experience and the intentionality of consciousness, where there is no sharp divide between the perceiver and the perceived. Bridging the Concepts Complementary Insights: Loy's non-dual perspectives and our discussion on epistemic idealism and relational perception can be seen as complementary. Both challenge the notion of a separate, independent self and emphasize the interconnectedness of experience. While epistemic idealism focuses on how our knowledge is mediated by consciousness, non-duality suggests dissolving the boundaries between self and world, offering a more holistic view. Practical Implications: Exploring these perspectives can deepen our understanding of consciousness and perception. For instance, recognizing the constructed nature of our experiences (epistemic idealism) can lead to insights about the flexibility and subjectivity of perception. Embracing a non-dual view can foster a sense of interconnectedness and reduce the emphasis on a separate self, which can have profound implications for how we relate to others and the world. Conclusion Thank you for bringing up David Loy’s work and highlighting its relevance to our discussion. His insights into non-duality indeed provide a valuable lens through which we can further explore and understand the nature of consciousness and the self. It’s fascinating to see how different philosophical traditions and ideas can intersect and enrich our understanding of such complex topics. Let’s continue to explore these connections and see where they lead us!!!!!!!!!

[@ccvttc]

i like the term "being" as the "ground" - this makes sense to me. thank you for explaining your ideas so well!

[@carbon1479]

Any thoughts on Susan Blackmore's discussions of right temporoparietal junction for her 1970 OBE and how much it does or doesn't explain? My sense is that she's saying a lot of the body representation and proprioception can be decoupled from physical reality and goes more into a dream state without crossing the usual thresholds that typically make dreams feel muted. I've still had things happen that I can't explain - like week-long bursts of strong synchronicity or intense and odd dreams that were premonitions of equally unusual events or people four or five months later. My sense is that matter is intensely tightly bound to consciousness, I agree with Tom Bilyeu that we're having a fully biological experience and I'd add that we'll almost never see anything that breaks the veil until we're dead. That clearly doesn't make 'consciousness strongly emerges from neurons' but it at least reminds me that there's TONS of BS that needs to be triaged from the new age community - like claiming that headmates or Jungian complexes are spirit guides or making these specious 'manifestation' claims, especially when it's political cope. While I don't know a whole lot about debunking atheism (at least credibly), and while I think almost anything going on here is just Darwinian evolution, the evidence doesn't seem to bear out that reductive materialism works as a totalizing ontology, maybe something almost as restrictive in the physical (like a simulation but less designer implication) but still reflecting the information basis.

[@TimFreke1]

I was at university when Susan was a young lecturer. Years later I got stoned with her in the forest in Holland by a Conference we were both speaking at - she’s a big pot smoker :-) I like her, but I think she’s wrong in short For my take on death synchronicity etc see my latest book Soul Story or one of my videos on it.

[@harlanmueller7499]

It’s certainly true. The consciousness is not thing nor container nor stuff. All of those are metaphors. Have a metaphor and act of consciousness or a conscious being whatever the hell that means.

[@buddy.boyo88]

if reality is an appearance then it's not reality if an appearance is real then it's not an appearance simple as, chief

[@conradambrossi738]

Surely there is no foundation as emergence could be endless how do you know there is a foundation of being? There are theories in physics saying that black holes create universes and it’s endless. Maybe there was never a beginning point but is infinitely endless in emergence. How else could the process of emergence being in the first place? It must always have been. What are your thoughts on this? Emergence is made of non dual being but non dual being did not have a starting point so emergence doesn’t have a starting point. You say consciousness is focused subjectivity in HD but when one becomes enlightened consciousness not only is focused but is also uncentralised, non localised, it’s everywhere. Is this also then an emergent phenomena of non dual being? When consciousness becomes conscious of itself it becomes non localised, in other words everywhere.

[@TimFreke1]

I’m working on a video that will be released later in the year that deals in detail with The idea of the beginning about which you raise great questions I think your points about Consciousness rely to heavily on the Everything is Consciousness philosophical assumption . When I saw Things in this way and went into a deep awake state I experienced Consciousness as everywhere. now I experience there is a oneness of being that is everywhere. more accurately there is an undifferentiated oneness that is differentiated as everything. The experiential shift that comes with this change in ideation is profound. When I saw myself as pure consciousness that is everywhere it was as if I was outside - the space within which appearances were arising. Now I experience Tim as an evolving individual embedded within that oneness with nothing outside of it.

[@michaelrogers4834]

C.S. Pierce developed some ideas very much along these lines. There are also clear parallels to Whitehead, who, no doubt influenced you.

[@TimFreke1]

@@michaelrogers4834 neither were actually influences strangely enough although since I have come to understand that they were definitely brilliant pioneers for the ideas I’m exploring.

[@AlexScuccato]

Fascinating, keep exploring, Tim!

[@josephgagliano6145]

Now you see what you are up against. So be it.

[@hiyoowihamainza949]

Very interesting. So, I'd agree that epistemic idealism (the idea that all we know is experience) does not necessarily entail ontological idealism. It's not a great argument to claim so. However, I still think epistemic idealism can be leveraged towards ontological idealism in a more humble way. Since all we ever know, and ever are, is experience, epistemic idealism seems uncontroversial. Of course, there's a whole thing about perception which gets implicated in this. But anyway, the argument would be that, all other things being equal, ontological idealism is more parsimonious. I.e, if physicalism and idealism explain all the same facts, idealism is preferable because it takes less "steps" since it stays within our one given, experience. Secondly, is a process ontology incompatible with idealism? My understanding is Whitehead had an idealistic process ontology. And it seemed you tacitly defined consciousness as metaconsciousness. I.e., a creature has to know that it is conscious in order to deem it conscious. But there are some arguments that challenge this. Ned Blocks distinction between access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness. In regards to your alarm clock example, Kastrup has an interesting paper titled "There is an unconscious but it may as well be conscious." I.e., unconscious means metacognitively unconscious, not phenomenally unconscious. This has the counterintuitive idea that we are currently having experiences we have no idea about it. Experiences that are phenomenal, but not metacognitive. We are having an experience, but do not know that we are having one. For example, someone in therapy realizing they've been depressed for years.

[@TimFreke1]

Epidemic idealism is the claim that what you’re experiencing is Scentsations not Things in the world . I claimed this for years and I now think it is wrong.

[@monkmysterio]

@hiyoowihamaiza949 your statement presents several interconnected philosophical positions: epistemic idealism, ontological idealism, physicalism, and process ontology, and touches on the nature of consciousness. Let's break down and critique each of the key claims made: Epistemic vs. Ontological Idealism Epistemic Idealism and Ontological Idealism: Statement: Epistemic idealism (all we know is experience) does not necessarily entail ontological idealism. However, epistemic idealism can be leveraged towards ontological idealism more humbly, suggesting that since all we know is experience, idealism is more parsimonious than physicalism. Critique: This is a nuanced point. Epistemic idealism, which holds that our knowledge is limited to experiences, does not logically necessitate ontological idealism, which posits that reality itself is fundamentally mental or experiential in nature. The critique lies in the distinction between knowing and being: just because our knowledge is based on experience doesn't mean that reality itself is constituted by experience. Leverage Argument: The claim that epistemic idealism can be leveraged towards ontological idealism suggests a pragmatic approach rather than a strictly logical one. However, leveraging in this context may appear to rely more on philosophical persuasion than rigorous proof. The idea of parsimony (Occam's Razor) can indeed be compelling, but it must be applied carefully. Physicalism posits an external, mind-independent world, which is a fundamentally different claim from idealism. The simplicity argument might be questioned on grounds of whether idealism indeed takes fewer "steps" or whether it just shifts the complexity to a different domain (the nature of the mind or consciousness). Parsimony Argument: Statement: If physicalism and idealism explain all the same facts, idealism is preferable because it is more parsimonious since it stays within our one given, experience. Critique: This assumes that both frameworks indeed explain all the same facts equivalently, which is contentious. Physicalism often appeals to an independent reality that exists whether or not it is perceived, while idealism reinterprets this reality as fundamentally experiential. Whether idealism is more parsimonious depends on how one evaluates the complexity of explaining intersubjectivity, the consistency of natural laws, and the apparent externality of the world solely in terms of experiences. Additionally, parsimony is one criterion among many (including explanatory power, coherence with other theories, and intuitive plausibility) in theory choice. Process Ontology and Idealism Process Ontology: Statement: Is process ontology incompatible with idealism? Whitehead had an idealistic process ontology. Critique: Process ontology, which views reality as a series of processes rather than static substances, is not inherently incompatible with idealism. Whitehead's process philosophy indeed integrates an idealistic dimension, considering the fundamental units of reality as occasions of experience. The critique here might address the complexity of integrating process ontology with other forms of idealism that might not emphasize change and becoming to the same extent. Additionally, it's important to clarify what kind of idealism is being discussed, as there are many variants (e.g., subjective idealism, objective idealism, absolute idealism). Consciousness and Metaconsciousness Consciousness: Statement: Defining consciousness as metaconsciousness (knowing that one is conscious) is challenged by Ned Block's distinction between access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness. Kastrup's paper suggests unconscious experiences are phenomenally conscious but not metacognitively conscious. Critique: The critique correctly points out that consciousness need not be metaconsciousness. Block's distinction clarifies that phenomenal consciousness (subjective experience) can occur without access consciousness (the ability to report on or use that experience in reasoning). This distinction undermines the idea that a creature must know it is conscious to be conscious. Kastrup's argument that there can be experiences we are unaware of aligns with this, suggesting a richer, more complex model of consciousness. This critique emphasizes the importance of distinguishing different aspects of consciousness and acknowledges that our understanding of consciousness must account for both phenomenology and cognitive access. Conclusion The original statement offers an interesting integration of epistemic idealism, ontological idealism, and considerations of parsimony but can be critiqued for potential logical gaps and assumptions. The relationship between epistemic and ontological idealism is more complex than suggested, and the parsimony argument needs careful scrutiny. Process ontology is compatible with some forms of idealism, but clarifications are necessary. Finally, the nuanced nature of consciousness requires distinguishing between different forms of awareness and challenges simplistic definitions of consciousness as merely metaconsciousness.

[@hiyoowihamainza949]

@@TimFreke1 So then would you be advocating for direct realism, in terms of a theory of perception?

[@monkmysterio]

@@TimFreke1 While traditional epistemic idealism emphasizes the role of sensations in our experience of the world, reconsidering this view can lead to a more integrated understanding that acknowledges both the mediated nature of perception and the intentionality that ties these sensations to external objects. This more nuanced view can accommodate the validity of sensations as intermediaries while still affirming the reality of the external world they represent. I believe (while it’s valuable to recognize the limitations and mediation of our sensory experiences) it’s also important to appreciate how these experiences connect us to the external world. This balanced perspective might address some of the concerns that led you to rethink your earlier stance on epistemic idealism.

[@TimFreke1]

@@hiyoowihamainza949 apologies that’s too big an issue to respond to adequately in the comments section here. I certainly think we are relating to the world not creating some sort of fantasy world as a representation of the real world or indeed instead of it. The experience you and I are having I suggest is what happens when a human psycho biological system relates to the world. I suggest everything is relational.

[@BhavarlalDevasi-f8f]

"awareness is the transcendence; it is going beyond the mind. Mind, as such, is the medium of duality, so consciousness can never transcend duality" - osho

[@TimFreke1]

Osho was funny but I never heard him be particularly wise.

[@BhavarlalDevasi-f8f]

@@TimFreke1 what is meditation according to you or it should be like....

[@TimFreke1]

@@BhavarlalDevasi-f8f for me meditation is focusing attention with such depth that I enter a profound communion with the universe.

[@BhavarlalDevasi-f8f]

@@TimFreke1 focus on what? What communion means? Ego dissolve? And isn't being present different from focus?

[@TimFreke1]

You can actually focus on anything, but this includes the oneness of being. Communion from the Latin means with unity. The individual is conscious of oneness so the self is taken to a new level rather than erased .

[@achildofthelight4725]

Nothing exists without being aware of it.

[@TimFreke1]

@@achildofthelight4725 nothing is experienced without something being aware of it. If I discover a new mineral at the bottom of the ocean that no life has ever been aware of that already existed for me to discover it. Unless you are claiming some sort of ontological great awareness that is aware of that - but this is a philosophical assumption which is far from self evident and I think it’s completely wrong.

[@achildofthelight4725]

@@TimFreke1 how do you discover something that was already there? What if you discovered what you found did not want to be discovered but just be itself alone in its own place?

[@achildofthelight4725]

@@TimFreke1 there is a group of people living hidden in the middle of the Amazon jungle for thousand of years just doing what they know is good for them. We discovered them whilst flying over them in a plane they feared would discover them... what happens now? They shall be a victim like those from the war of the worlds.

[@achildofthelight4725]

@@TimFreke1 for thousands of years we try to seak the meaning of life knowing there is no beginning to it.... yet we still search for nothing that can be found? What are we searching for, when everything is staring at you as yourself. 🤗

[@achildofthelight4725]

Point being.... if there is no beginning then there is awareness of it having no beginning. How do I know this is true? I am aware of this being my own belief. We cannot prove there is no thing that created everything, because the question would be, where did no thing come from.... answer to all questions are.... nothing exists, and here it is, meaningless, unless you give it a meaning.

[@davivify]

Some provocative stuff. Surely you must've anticipated viewer reactions. So here's mine: You say in sleep you're awakened by the clock. Unconsciousness being interrupted by something in consciousness. I don't know about you but when I awaken it's almost always from some dream. So I can be said to be conscious of the dream, and then, in a matter of seconds, there is a transition between the dream and awake state; till I'm sure that the awake state has precedence. But never was there a break in consciousness, just its contents. And the fact that I was aware of the transition shows that. Let me use another word: "awareness". To me, awareness is _all._ It is primary and comes before all else. And all else appears within it. Like clouds appear in the sky. Within awareness, seems to me, is sentience - knowing, understanding, grokking. And within that is rational thought. Reason. And without _any_ of that science would not be possible.

[@TimFreke1]

Sometimes I wake from a dream and mostly not. my point is only that we are taking in information about the world all the time unconsciously and to some degree we can choose to process that in high definition and it becomes conscious. I suspect right now you’re not conscious of your left foot until I mention it and now you are.

[@TimFreke1]

It is fascinating how provoked people are by ideas that question their own. I’m excited when I see new possibilities for understanding because it means a whole New World opens up.

[@TimFreke1]

I understand your comment because it is identical to ideas you’ll find in nearly all of my books. But I think it’s mistaken.

[@monkmysterio]

Your experience of transitioning from dreaming to wakefulness illustrates the continuity and relational nature of consciousness. It underscores the idea that consciousness is a dynamic process that adapts to different contexts, whether internal or external. This perspective enriches our understanding of consciousness and supports a nuanced view that integrates insights from phenomenology, epistemic idealism, and relational realism. Thank you for sharing this thought-provoking observation!

[@jayemd]

Hi Tim, I'm really liking your new ideas. "It is obvious that consciousness is the ground." "Is it?" But then you say: "Existence is a process of evolving onto every more emergent levels". ...Is it? Science seems to indicate that the nature of the universe is entropy, but it is still possible for evolution to take place (for anyone looking for more info about that, there are lots of videos on KZbin about evolution and the 2nd law of thermodynamics). As evolved humans we are right inside a pocket of the universe where evolution is happening, so I'm not sure about applying these ideas of evolution to all of existence (if that is what you mean). It does feel like that to us humans however, but maybe in the same way ground consciousness does. My current baseline is currently just: there is existence, it can be complex, it can evolve, and it can be conscious (even if that consciousness is "illusionary", and even if the likelihood of this all happening is as tiny as the ratio of the primes to the reals ;-) Anyway, I only know there is lots more to explore here so I am looking forward to more videos.

[@TimFreke1]

I think it’s pretty safe to say that existence has evolved onto more emergent levels given that 14 billion years ago the universe was mainly just hydrogen and now it’s having a conversation about the nature of existence on KZbin. 😀

[@grantlawrence611]

I had a profound understanding that being exists in infinite relationships. That a particular being can never exist outside of relationships. Indeed we as beings are our relationships. But underlying the infinite evolving relationships was the fundamental being which all the infinite expressions of being are. The idea of consciousness to me simply arises out of relationships. Take a drug and see how that interaction of relationships effects consciousness. Get hit in the head and see what that interaction of relationships effects consciousness or lack of consciousness. But being will always be there but a particular consciousness or lack of one will not always be there. So Tim, I am so glad I heard your video. That is my understanding. Thanks

[@TimFreke1]

Well put 👍

[@hempfu]

start from the fact that we can not " think" it ...

[@TimFreke1]

There is a common confusion because the word ‘think’ is commonly used to refer to 2 distinct things - monologue / imagining talking to yourself and ideating / categorising our experience so that we know what it is Monologue is an activity and stops us being able to focus on other activities - as any meditator knows. Ideation is happening all the time unconsciously and without it we cannot tell what we are experiencing - and that applies to any experience including the experience of knowing we are conscious.

[@patrickquinlan3056]

Thanks Tim. I have been reading Peter Kingsley lately and his book "Reality" talks about Parmenides' ideas about what is real and this great philosopher came to the conclusion that Being is primary. Isn't it wonderful to have esteemed ancient philosophers agreeing with your conclusions?

[@TimFreke1]

Kingsley’s work is fascinating

[@monkmysterio]

I've been ignoring all the Greek tragedy i've read in my life for the time being, no pun intended.

[@Morrowindur]

Hey Tim, are you familiar with Ian McGilchrist's work? If not, I think you'd find it extremely fascinating. The book 'The Matter with Things' is just a WOW :) The conclusion is pretty much that YES it IS a process, but it ALSO is a thing. :) It's just like Tim Freke. There is that THING without which there would be no Tim yet Tim IS changing all the time- I'd HIGHLY also recommend Michael Tsarion's approach to the question, he's a great great modern thinker

[@artandculture5262]

I read it with close attention, and one outcome of interest was that female brains tend to be left hemisphere dominant, which means filling in the details to make a schema fit the desired result. This is not taken up in the public as an idea, but it is almost precisely what woke politics is.

[@TimFreke1]

I know Ian and read some of the book while he was working on it. He very kindly gave me a copy when the new books were released You may be interested in our conversation which was the very first one I did in my what is Life series - long time ago. I don’t know Tsarion though.

[@decades5643]

@@artandculture5262 It sounds like Ian is going the way of Peterson. In his work he seems to think the right hemisphere is the "master" and superior to the left hemisphere. He then associates the left hemisphere with women. It's always the same nonsense with these "spiritual" guru clowns. Misogyny and authoritarianism.

[@decades5643]

@@artandculture5262 It sounds like Ian is going the way of Peterson. In his work he seems to think the right hemisphere is the "master" and superior to the left hemisphere. He then associates the left hemisphere with women. It's always the same nonsense with these "spiritual" gurus. Misogyny and authoritarianism.

[@decades5643]

@@artandculture5262 It sounds like Ian is going the way of Peterson. In his work he seems to think the right hemisphere is the "master" and superior to the left hemisphere. He then associates the left hemisphere with women. It's always the same BS with these "spiritual" gurus. Misogyny and authoritarianism.

[@freethinker79]

Hello Tim. Would you consider 'emanation' to be the same as 'emergence'?

[@TimFreke1]

No - emanation is the idea that there is some primal spirit that overflows into soul then matter. Emergence is the idea that the universe evolves upwards rather than falling downwards as it were so that each new level of the evolutionary process that emerges requires the levels before it.

[@monkmysterio]

@@TimFreke1 So we’re going to conquer space? You know we’re in space already, way out

[@iannisaliferis]

Very well expressed!

[@ozanfirat84]

How can a thing as absolute as consciousness emerge from non - consciousness? Doesn't materialism say the same thing? It says so called consciousness emerge from matter particularly from brains. As far as I can understand, the only differrence is that you say consciousness emerges from non- conscious thing called "being" and materialists claim that consciousness emerges from non-conscious brains. "Being" and "brain"... They are both unconscious fundamentally. And since you say basically the same thing as materialism but what you say is one step more complex, if you apply the Occam's Razor, should we just conclude that materialism makes more sense

[@TimFreke1]

I don’t think Consciousness is an absolute - it is relative. It’s a relationship between a system and the world. We read the world unconsciously for the most part, but we have the ability to focus and read information consciously. Systems have been reading information about the world since the very beginning of evolution consciously reading the world and ourselves is a very emergent level of that The difference between what I’m saying and materialism is that I don’t think all that exists in the universe is matter and I’m not a reductionist. I think the more emergent cannot be reduced to the less emergent. And I think the emergence of the psyche has opened up the domain that spirituality concerns itself with and that is an emergent reality.

[@ozanfirat84]

​​​​@@TimFreke1 Tim. I think you could have stated that the consciousness in the beginning is a kind of "proto-consciousness" trying to know itself and trying to emerge to new levels increasing / expanding itself in complexity using the tool of process / time. With that way, your new ideas would still be compatible with your old books as well as the perennial philosophy. But now your ideas look like the materialism in disguise imho

[@TimFreke1]

@@ozanfirat84 I could’ve said that and tried that in one of my books. But it doesn’t work and so I’ve needed to revise things more thoroughly. What I am saying only sounds like materialism to people who don’t actually listen to what I’m saying because it’s the very opposite of materialism. It’s the idea that the non-material is just as real as the material, but that has emerged from the less emergent level. Indeed, physics has known shown that matter itself is an emergent quality of information.

[@alecmisra4964]

So phenomenology is false too?

[@TimFreke1]

Phenomenology is the basic method I employ for my philosophy I would say in the sense that I spend an enormous amount of time examining my experience to understand what this mysterious business of being alive is

[@monkmysterio]

Great question. Let's clarify what phenomenology entails and how it relates to our discussion on perception, epistemic idealism, and realism. Understanding Phenomenology Phenomenology: Phenomenology, as developed by philosophers like Edmund Husserl and later expanded by others such as Martin Heidegger and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. It emphasizes describing and understanding how things appear to consciousness, without making assumptions about the external world beyond these appearances. Compatibility with Other Perspectives Phenomenology and Epistemic Idealism: Epistemic idealism posits that our knowledge of the world is mediated by our sensory and cognitive faculties. Phenomenology complements this by focusing on how these mediated experiences are structured and lived. Phenomenology doesn't necessarily claim that there is no external world; instead, it brackets or sets aside questions about the nature of the external world to focus on how we experience it. Phenomenology and Relational Perception: The relational perspective you've mentioned aligns well with phenomenological insights. Phenomenology emphasizes the intentionality of consciousness - the idea that our experiences are always about something in the world, reflecting a relational dynamic. This relational aspect is central to phenomenology, which examines how we are always situated in a context and how our experiences are influenced by our interactions with the world. Addressing the Question Phenomenology Is Not False: Phenomenology provides a valuable framework for understanding the lived experience of perception. It is not necessarily incompatible with epistemic idealism or indirect realism; rather, it offers a different focus. While epistemic idealism and indirect realism address how we come to know the world and the nature of our perceptual representations, phenomenology delves into the qualitative, subjective experience of those representations. Complementary Approaches: These approaches can be seen as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Phenomenology enriches our understanding of perception by providing a detailed description of how experiences manifest to consciousness. Meanwhile, epistemic idealism and indirect realism provide a framework for understanding the underlying processes and structures that shape these experiences. Conclusion In summary, phenomenology is not false; rather, it offers a different but complementary perspective to epistemic idealism and indirect realism. While phenomenology focuses on the first-person experience and the intentionality of consciousness, epistemic idealism and indirect realism address how our knowledge of the world is mediated by sensory and cognitive processes. Both perspectives are valuable for a comprehensive understanding of perception and reality.

[@avalonseedlings5416]

Tom Campbell the physicist also has worked out an elegant theory of God evolving away from chaos towards love .

[@TimFreke1]

Tom’s ideas seem to be more like my old ideas than what I’m exploring now

[@avalonseedlings5416]

@@TimFreke1 ok thanks Tim ,I will check out some more of your recent videos ..

[@jhhjyjkkkjgfjjk]

You spoke a lot about "the ground" and "nonduality". I think your understanding (and dilemma) sprung from Advaita Vedanta. I would suggest you read and study Yogācāra. It explains in detail about the 8 consciousnesses, as found in the Abidhamma and Buddhist sutras, like the Yogācārabhumi-sastra and the Cheng Weishi Lun of Tripitaka master, Xuan Zang. You will discover the great difference of what is called "consciousness" as expounded by the Buddha and the Buddhist Yogācārins and how it refutes the teachings of Adi Sancaracarya's Advaita Vedanta.

[@TimFreke1]

You’re absolutely right - there are many different philosophical approaches in the East and west. Having studied so many of them for five decades I’ve ended up feeling that none of them are what I’m looking for and that we need a new understanding that is more congruent with science to take us forward.

[@monkmysterio]

Albert Einstein most famously said “If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself.” This is perhaps the biggest communication lesson when attempting to capture the hearts and minds of people in our roles as communicators.

[@BhavarlalDevasi-f8f]

What is enlightenment? Buddha says it cant be described

[@TimFreke1]

I think enlightenment might be an outdated Indian religious idea used to reference to some interesting states that human beings can inhabit.

[@BhavarlalDevasi-f8f]

@@TimFreke1 so what's new? And can you tell me when in utter present moment when mind chattering and any kind of outer sensation cease, in this pure emptiness what does humans "feel"? Conscious but no reflection...is Buddha inner bliss all lies?

[@TimFreke1]

@@BhavarlalDevasi-f8f no these are really experiences of huge significance but have been understood throughout history in different ways and I think we need to keep that process of evolving our understanding going.

[@BhavarlalDevasi-f8f]

@@TimFreke1 the moment we utterly aware of something inner it disappears like thoughts, emotions and ego, then what remains in the pure conscious state? And if ego is not then it can't be an experience because it takes duality, I think the state of pure consciousness is a mystery.

[@shaunbanana911]

I think Tim when it comes to being you are still describing something that must have qualities/properties for it to become anything - It’s base state you are describing sounds no different than describing a god as nothing or issness or ineffable yet it must have qualities to enable it to become something - Otherwise it’s magic - There is no logical bridge from a state or entity that as no qualities or properties to one that does - I always found that traditions that posit that have not thought that through - It’s as good as say we don’t know or god is unknowable which is the same as Hawkins saying that before the Big Bang was something beyond our comprehension (He also said what breathes the fire into the equations - obviously he was conflicted about god)

[@TimFreke1]

I think you’re wrong. We need to abandon those mythic ideas as anachronistic. Instead we need to understand the foundations of the universe in terms of mathematics.

[@shaunbanana911]

@@TimFreke1 Well if I am, then what breathes the fire into the equations and what is its nature - Otherwise you are describing a materialist mechanistic model

[@TimFreke1]

@@shaunbanana911 we’re not gonna resolve this in the comments my friend - but I would say nothing is breathing fire into equations. We have to stop thinking of these mythical anachronistic terms to make sense of the ontological basement of reality.

[@shaunbanana911]

@@TimFreke1 I have stuck to how I arrived at my own experience of oneness and the actual experience of oneness and all does indeed flow. I agree all is a process and Whitehead himself believes all flows but the only problem I have is that existence/being is lacking as an explanation of a simple god at the beginning unless we understand the origins & nature of existence/being. Understanding the foundations of the universe as mathematics also raises the question of the origins of mathematics - discovered or created by us - if it is discovered then surely its dependent on a mind of some kind "to breath the fire into the equations" I appreciate you are looking for a new interpretation that encompasses spirituality and science which is good so long as we don't lose the spirituality and blindly dismiss what truth we have found.

[@Magic_10001]

Kinda crazy. It's so obvious when you see it.

[@sathya999]

This is all mind stuff. Who you are is prior to consciousness. Read sages such as Nisargadatta...or go within and keep quiet. When there are no thoughts, the truth of being is seen, but not by a someone. It cannot be spoken...so why try?

[@TimFreke1]

I’ve been reading Nisargadatta since I was in my 20s. I studied with one of his followers Ramesh Balsekar But I now think they are both wrong about the nature of existence You don’t need to retreat into dismissing everything you disagree with as mind stuff or into the idea that words can’t express the truth … words are what we have to understand this great mystery and the deeper our understanding the deeper our experience I’ve spent many years in meditation and I know the power of silence I also know the power of clear thought it’s not one of the other it can be both

[@sathya999]

@@TimFreke1 Words can never express what is awared in silence. So you have "seen" beyond the Tao Te Ching, and you dismiss the teachings of saints and sages for thousands of years? One can spend many decades in "meditation" and still not aware the truth of being.

[@TimFreke1]

@@sathya999 in every area of human endeavour we build on the shoulders of the Giants of the past but we create something new and better when we can.

[@sathya999]

@@TimFreke1 Of course this body-mind does not "Need" to express in a way that the Tim character does not like. What comes out, comes out. There is no need involved. I don't go looking into the "past" to judge what occurs or not. Life flows as it does.

[@sathya999]

@@TimFreke1 Ultimate truth is not a human doing. Dragging the non-dual into the realm of duality is a me-stake...

[@PippiBarbieri]

95 % of ALL learning is subconscious or unconscious - are all of these a processes aspects of consciousness???

[@monkmysterio]

is consciousness the emergence of unconsciousness?

[@TimFreke1]

I suggest that every system in the universe is processing its environment in someway. On the biological level this first becomes unconscious sensory processing such as plants reacting to light - and then eventually this will emerge as focused HD conscious processing in the animal world. That will then lead to the emergence of systems being conscious of how they are processing which is psyche.

[@monkmysterio]

@@TimFreke1 "Death Is Not The End" interview with Carl Gustav Jung: Interviewer: I know that you say death is psychologically just as important as birth and like it is an integral part of life, but surely, it can't be like birth if it is an end. Can it? Jung: Yes. If it is an end and there we are not quite certain about this end because we know that there are these peculiar faculties of the psyche- that it isn't entirely confined to space and time. You can have dreams or visions of the future. You can see around corners and such things. Only ignorants deny these facts. Its quite evident that they do exist and have existed always. Now these facts show that the psyche- in part, at least- is not dependent on these confinements. And then what? When the psyche is not under that obligation to....live in time and space alone- and obviously, it doesn't. Then, in .. to that extent, the psyche is not submitted to those laws and that means a..a practical continuation of life of a sort of psychical existence beyond time and space.

[@tomkuptz6374]

Sounds like you are going down the dead end Julian Jaynes road. Don't give up on radical nondualism just because it seems a little solipsy.

[@TimFreke1]

No, that’s a wrong assumption - I’m not going down that road

[@buddy.boyo88]

idealist : there is no time, space and matter it just appears as that ! me : it appears as what ? idealist : as time, space and matter me : but you said they don't exist, how is consciousness imitating a non existent thing with non existent qualities ? idealist : we don't talk about that !

[@TimFreke1]

😂

[@endofnight]

My goodness y'all sound lost. Tim, time for you to have another chat with Bernardo Kastrup.

[@TimFreke1]

@@endofnight I’d like to talk to Bernardo again - but first I need to complete your project in outlining in depth the philosophy and proposing - I hope to give it away free on KZbin sometime this year if all goes well - it’ll be a long series of videos exploring each idea in detail

[@buddy.boyo88]

@@endofnight speaking like a true cult believer. you disagree with our savior = you are not saved. in Bernie's model you have dissociation without time, a process of separation without space, the mind at large assuming non existent qualities of non existent objects. and the answer to conundrum is: " it just appears as if there is separation, it just appears as if time passes, it just appears as if there is a multitude of entities" how many times can you say " it just appears as " before people can no longer suspend their disbelief ? this is exactly like in church when they show you the cracker and say " this IS the flesh and blood if Jesus! it just appears as bread and wine ! " yea, no, I think you're taking me for a sucker

[@laserhobbyist9751]

LOL, there is nothing such as a pure sun by this logic, it is nothing but a collection of activity.

[@TimFreke1]

I have no idea what you mean, my friend. I would say the Sun is a physical system. And as the whole universe is a process, it is also a process and in that way an active System. I’m not sure how the words pure or impure would apply to it.

[@monkmysterio]

@@TimFreke1 Mr. Freke, I absolutely adore your channel. You're going to have to also redefine a lot of terms starting with "process", then information, then probability. THEN "order"! Is this an equation? Can you explain the mathematics? Draw a picture? Because people learn in different ways

[@Michael-el]

Plotinus.

[@slimdusty6328]

How does consciousness arise from a piece of meat. How does a virus arise to become a more resilient virus. How vastly different is evolution from consciousness. Things are busily competing. And consciousness continues to compete

[@monkmysterio]

What started the big bang?

[@slimdusty6328]

@@monkmysterio that's something we still don't for sure. Perhaps we may never know for sure?. However, whether we would suggest it was God, or something other than God, both views seem to propose that something might have pre existed somewhere before the big bang

[@monkmysterio]

@@slimdusty6328 i've gone mad thinking about this

[@slimdusty6328]

@@monkmysterio 🙂its not necessarily an uncommon outcome. Humans seem to desire to have "absolute" certainty. Perhaps that's related to ways we evolved to be like. Maybe its still related to a certain type of competition?.For instance like, competition to attempt to completely overcome fear. I prefer to attempt to feel happy enough with a certain amount of uncertainty. My view is that perhaps that stance could maybe help to assist with peace and harmony. Its harder to fight so dogmatically with others once we accept a degree of uncertainty ?

[@monkmysterio]

@@slimdusty6328 I can't thank you enough for taking the time to write to me. I love your koan. I truly have gone mad. I sleep most of the time and only go to restaurants when I wake up. I have millions of dollars. I fall back asleep thinking about the origins of this reality. I lost my first child in 2017 and haven't been the same since. I was once studying to be a gastrointestinal surgeon and then one day everything changed. The day was mother's day, my wife and I had just finished putting the last bottle of breast milk in the freezer where there was a month supply. Then the fridge stopped working all of a sudden. I googled for a local service technician and someone came to inspect the refrigerator right away. He reached towards the back of the refrigerator and pulled out a piece of the malfunctioning part. "This is what's wrong" he said. He then walked towards me with this piece in his hands and held it up to my face in a despicable manner so shocking that I froze. Just as I was getting ready to violently kick him out of my home I heard my infant boy crying in his crib. As I went to pick up the baby I heard the technician say "This part, which looks like intestines, is what's wrong." I politely told him over my shoulder to leave the residence. My wife and I both dashed to the crib and noticed that the baby was blue. We immediately got in the car and took him to the local clinic. The doctor there sent us to a larger hospital. At the next hospital the staff told us to take him to a "children's" hospital. So we took him there. Once there, a pediatric gastrointestinal surgeon sat us down to explain the blue color: "The intestines is where the problem is...he wont make it" he said. We both turned blue. It was the coldest summer day of my life. Well, I politely told the surgeon to put the poor baby to sleep and you can imagine the rest. We had nicknamed the boy "Daddy Long Legs" because he had long arms and legs like me. When we got back home later that day I went into the bathroom to wash my hands (a frequent habit I had at the time), only to be startled by a real daddy long legs spider hanging from the sink faucet. The home was mysteriously insect free up until that point. We had never seen any type of insect until that day. I had a staring contest with it and decided not to wash my hands at that moment. Well, as you can imagine, I am very much frozen in time there. I think about that day every day. Yes, I've already paid thousands of dollars to see a real therapist. Science does not have the answers. Now Tim is running an evidence-based spiritual channel. Great. I study that day like a detective. Every new day I can discover more detail of what else I missed that day. There were clearly cryptic signs from the spirit world. That is what i'm wrestling with nowadays. I've been wearing a Mexican wrestling mask to symbolize my final battle with uncertainty. I've taken it out on poor Tim at times. I read all his books many years ago. Strangely, I was ordained a Buddhist monk by an oracle from India many years ago, which I ignored for many years. That's another story. Thank you for responding @slimdusty6328

[@VANDERWALTTINA]

We all basically know nothing 😂

[@TimFreke1]

I know what your words mean. I know I’m experiencing this moment. I know how to do loads of stuff. I know two and two is four. I know I love my wife.

[@monkmysterio]

i recommend studying the many stories out there about spirits contacting the living. I have a story if you are interested. Stories like these may give you a sense that there is another "world" beyond this one. There is something else we do not have a complete picture of.

[@VANDERWALTTINA]

@@monkmysterio yes!! With that I totally agree, and THAT world, I sense, in a way, is more real than this one. I don't know how I know this, if it's something I read or heard, or if it's really true, whatever that means, cause I haven't really experienced it, like I have experienced this one, if one can call it experience

[@VANDERWALTTINA]

@@TimFreke1 yes, with this I know you're right

[@NotAnEvilPersian]

You need some John Vervaeke!

[@TimFreke1]

I had a wonderful conversation with John in my What is Life series. It’s available on KZbin.

[@carlt570]

I am with you on 'being', 'process' and 'evolution'. Not convinced you havn't 'thrown the baby out with the bathwater' so to speak with 'consciousness'. When one defines consciousness as 'a thing' the presumption/stipulation has already been made ! One could use your method : "its obvious that consciousness is a thing" "Is it ?" In his talks, Francis Lucille defines consciousness simply as: "that which is hearing these words" (in this case 'reading') This is an interesting elaboration on the Idealist perspective (particularly from Donald Hoffman) kzbin.info/www/bejne/bp_TZWaGl7tjd5I

[@TimFreke1]

It is exactly Lucille’s definition that I had myself and I now see is mistaken. I see Consciousness as a emergent form of relational processing.

[@monkmysterio]

@@TimFreke1 There was a young man who said ‘Damn, For it certainly seems that I am A creature that moves In determinate grooves. I’m not even a bus, I’m a tram. ???

[@carlt570]

@@TimFreke1 'as emergent' - which then bumps up against 'the hard problem' Iain McGilchrist rather elegantly considers matter and consciousness to be different phases (phases as in eg ice and vapour as phases of water) 'relational processing' - does not 'relating' require some form of 'awareness' . You previously convey the 'process of becoming' as 'being in relationship with itself' . Sounds like a definition of consciousness

[@monkmysterio]

Did the four fundamental forces of the universe (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak nuclear force) come before consciousness or after? Did "they" shape your life or did YOU shape "THEM"?

[@TimFreke1]

@@carlt570 I agree with Iain about most things. I don’t think we need pre-existent awareness to explain Consciousness as essentially they mean the same thing Emergence doesn’t bump up against the hard problem if you see consciousness as relational because relationality has existed from the very beginning of the process and consciousness is a very emergent level of that

[@benjaminmogha]

all of this banter is trivial, you are wasting your time trying to find peace by means of intelelctual valdity, let it go

[@TimFreke1]

Why do you assume I’m interested in finding peace in this enquiry? I meditate to find peace. I reflect to increase my understanding. What is the difference between you and I today and our ancestors who lived in caves. Our understanding has increased. Why would you be dismissive of that?

[@benjaminmogha]

@@TimFreke1 the density of your response speaks very loudly, you are caught up in a cycle, the future you will not care about this meaningless pursuit

[@monkmysterio]

@@benjaminmogha you are cruel benjaminmogha. Your last name "Mogha" has roots in South Asia, particularly in India. It is found among various communities and regions within the country. Here are a few details about the possible origins and associations of your surname: Sanskrit connection --the name "Mogha" can have linguistic roots in Sanskrit, where it might relate to meanings such as "vain" or "fruitless," although the surname usage might not directly connect to this meaning. You thus have that name for a reason. Just look at what your culture is starting to do to western children: Search "Alexis - Non Duality" on KZbin

[@TimFreke1]

@@benjaminmogha you’re absolutely right. My interest constantly evolve. You obviously do not share my passion for pushing the boundaries of understanding. I’m fine with that.

[@jonnygemmel2243]

Demis hasabis side hustling