It was from Rupert that i first heard of DBH's work, yet once I started reading DBH I didn't much connect it with Rupert's but Roland as a book and this conversation show real connections. It was a delight to listen to the two of you with a great mixture of seriousness and humour talk about the the implications of animals on our theology and philosophy.
This was a fabulous talk to listen to while throwing the stick for my dog and picking tomatoes in my garden. I was curious what you thought of Sheldrake's suggestion of the interchangeability between "spirit" and the contemporary concept of "energy"; your insights on the history of πνεῦμα language in Christian thought were obviously pertinent, but I'm specifically interested in whether or not "energy" isn't the idea in our contemporary physics more directly parallel to the function that "breath" language played in ancient physics and biology. Any thoughts?
I've been fond of Sheldrake's work since I picked up A New Science of Life at Cambridge (where I'm guessing I started as a graduate student the year you left—at least, I hope that's why I don't have memories of your presence there), and I've enjoyed reading many of his books since. It was a real delight to find the two of you in conversation: two authors whose work I relish but whom it wouldn't have occurred to me to associate.
I've wondered, idly, whether Sheldrake's account of morphic fields could be used to articulate a contemporary version of the patristic understanding of atonement stressing Christ's transformation of human nature. Anyway, thanks for participating in and sharing this engaging conversation.
You started talking about crystals and I can't help asking: on a scale of 1-10 how "legit" is new age spirituality? Is there _anything_ to the idea of crystal healing?
Veldig imponerende haha! Norsk er ikke enkelt! En gang du besøker broren din i Norge må du virkelig dra innom Bergen, min by. Det ville vært storartet å slå av en prat!
what a fascinating talk! I watched it yesterday. Love DBH for being open to having a conversation with Rupert, when a lot of other scholars, even those from philosophical and theological fields and probably some of your own colleagues would, unfortunately, avoided him because of his somewhat maligned reputation in academia. It just shows you can have a great discussion with someone else, even if they have certain views and positions that are outside the typical scholarly view, views that you might not even agree with
Sheldrake is often maligned as a heretic, for questioning certain dogmas obscurely incubated in the mechanistic paradigm, but he remains fairly immune to critique regarding method. This is because he never proposes any hypothesis, however seemingly exotic, without proposing a regimen of experiment, either to confirm it or to disprove it. It's actually an extremely humble approach.
you know you mentioned how Bacon and Galileo can be seen as sort of the pre-cursors of the mechanistic paradigm or proto-mechanistic world view. I always thought that Newton was kind of the challenge too that. I don't know how you feel about it, but with Newton there was always this barrier that couldn't be crossed, that science had its limits. I'm thinking of "hypothesis non fingo" and all of that. Then in the early 20th century you had physicists like Einstein, Heisenberg, Hermann Weyl, Bohr etc. who had great philosophical understanding. You had Pauli and his relationship with Carl Jung, who I don't really care for that much, but their collaboration on synchronicity and the nature of dreams that goes beyond a mechanistic world view. You don't get that anymore with the physicists today who often have a troubling view on philosophy. I'm not at all surprised when someone like Sheldrake or John Hagelin and his Transcendental Meditation when they challenge mechanistic dogma how they are received
I have written on this in an essay called "Should Science Think?" in Theological Territories. (There's an abridged version of the piece elsewhere, but the full version is there.)
It was from Rupert that i first heard of DBH's work, yet once I started reading DBH I didn't much connect it with Rupert's but Roland as a book and this conversation show real connections. It was a delight to listen to the two of you with a great mixture of seriousness and humour talk about the the implications of animals on our theology and philosophy.
This was a fabulous talk to listen to while throwing the stick for my dog and picking tomatoes in my garden. I was curious what you thought of Sheldrake's suggestion of the interchangeability between "spirit" and the contemporary concept of "energy"; your insights on the history of πνεῦμα language in Christian thought were obviously pertinent, but I'm specifically interested in whether or not "energy" isn't the idea in our contemporary physics more directly parallel to the function that "breath" language played in ancient physics and biology. Any thoughts?
I've been fond of Sheldrake's work since I picked up A New Science of Life at Cambridge (where I'm guessing I started as a graduate student the year you left—at least, I hope that's why I don't have memories of your presence there), and I've enjoyed reading many of his books since. It was a real delight to find the two of you in conversation: two authors whose work I relish but whom it wouldn't have occurred to me to associate.
I've wondered, idly, whether Sheldrake's account of morphic fields could be used to articulate a contemporary version of the patristic understanding of atonement stressing Christ's transformation of human nature. Anyway, thanks for participating in and sharing this engaging conversation.
You started talking about crystals and I can't help asking: on a scale of 1-10 how "legit" is new age spirituality? Is there _anything_ to the idea of crystal healing?
I don’t recall crystals in the conversation.
It was in the second half, where you were discussing consciousness, panpsychism, materialism etc
(the crystals were just briefly mentioned once or twice by both of you)
I have no recollection. Strange. Anyway, New Age spirituality is generally silly.
On The Power Of Sound
William Wordsworth
I
Thy functions are ethereal,
As if within thee dwelt a glancing mind,
Organ of vision! And a Spirit aerial
Informs the cell of Hearing, dark and blind;
Intricate labyrinth, more dread for thought
To enter than oracular cave;
Strict passage, through which sighs are brought,
And whispers for the heart, their slave;
And shrieks, that revel in abuse
Of shivering flesh; and warbled air,
Whose piercing sweetness can unloose
The chains of frenzy, or entice a smile
Into the ambush of despair;
Hosannas pealing down the long-drawn aisle,
And requiems answered by the pulse that beats
Devoutly, in life's last retreats!
انت دائما رائع
إنه لطف كبير منك أن تقول ذلك.
David you know Arabic!? 😮
Not fluently.
Great talk, David!
Merci
Greetings from Norway
Brilliant talk! Roland in Moonlight is a fantastic book!
Tusen takk. Det er veldig snilt av deg. Eldstebroren min bor i Norge, så jeg prøver å lære litt av språket. Tilgi meg, hvis jeg gjør et rot av det.
Fint, då får du svenska på köpet också (och förmodligen danska).
Veldig imponerende haha! Norsk er ikke enkelt! En gang du besøker broren din i Norge må du virkelig dra innom Bergen, min by. Det ville vært storartet å slå av en prat!
Som det skjer, bor broren min ikke langt fra Bergen. Han og kona har en gård ved siden av Hardangerfjorden.
Did I get the dative of fjord right?
Det gjorde du ja. Hardangerfjorden er herlig, særlig nå på denne tiden av året!
what a fascinating talk! I watched it yesterday. Love DBH for being open to having a conversation with Rupert, when a lot of other scholars, even those from philosophical and theological fields and probably some of your own colleagues would, unfortunately, avoided him because of his somewhat maligned reputation in academia. It just shows you can have a great discussion with someone else, even if they have certain views and positions that are outside the typical scholarly view, views that you might not even agree with
Sheldrake is often maligned as a heretic, for questioning certain dogmas obscurely incubated in the mechanistic paradigm, but he remains fairly immune to critique regarding method. This is because he never proposes any hypothesis, however seemingly exotic, without proposing a regimen of experiment, either to confirm it or to disprove it. It's actually an extremely humble approach.
you know you mentioned how Bacon and Galileo can be seen as sort of the pre-cursors of the mechanistic paradigm or proto-mechanistic world view. I always thought that Newton was kind of the challenge too that. I don't know how you feel about it, but with Newton there was always this barrier that couldn't be crossed, that science had its limits. I'm thinking of "hypothesis non fingo" and all of that. Then in the early 20th century you had physicists like Einstein, Heisenberg, Hermann Weyl, Bohr etc. who had great philosophical understanding. You had Pauli and his relationship with Carl Jung, who I don't really care for that much, but their collaboration on synchronicity and the nature of dreams that goes beyond a mechanistic world view. You don't get that anymore with the physicists today who often have a troubling view on philosophy. I'm not at all surprised when someone like Sheldrake or John Hagelin and his Transcendental Meditation when they challenge mechanistic dogma how they are received
I have written on this in an essay called "Should Science Think?" in Theological Territories. (There's an abridged version of the piece elsewhere, but the full version is there.)