Tim Freke & Richard Cox, UFOs, 9-11, Climate And Truth |391|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Oct 2, 2018.

  1. Sam Hunter

    Sam Hunter New

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    24
    Home Page:
    Apologies to make a comment that doesn't add to the conversation but because I am suffering a flu like... (but "not" flu according to the "scientific test" administered by my medical doctor just yesterday) ...virus, I am struggling to put together much of what I wish to say.

    Thanks for this wonderful thread and thanks to Alex, Richard and Tim for the brave conversation.

    I do hope to be added to the "climate change" group and for the record, I lean towards "something smells" about this meme of "man" being a catastrophic cause while a small few stand to benefit greatly from the proposed (all but forced) changes.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
    Richard Cox likes this.
  2. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,466
    Done!

    David
     
    Sam Hunter likes this.
  3. Sam Hunter

    Sam Hunter New

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    24
    Home Page:
    I just wrote a post, still incomplete, that has taken up three pages of a WORD document. I want to post it and yet, having some experience with forums, have come to experience a good bit of negativity to "monster posts." Ohhh I can write pithy ones and I can also write some good two or three paragraph posts, but for my first actual substantive post on the Skeptiko forum, I have decided I best not post it... so why am I even posting this? Anyways, the following is an attempt to write a shorter post.

    I just wish to say that I was so, so, so wishing for Tim to have the opportunity to discuss his new philosophy with someone that might be able to challenge Tim on this philosophy like Alex did. I also was pleased and appreciated that Richard participated. The reason is because I had become a hand holding "journeyer" with Tim since I discovered him in 2005. But his new philosophy he developed in the last few years and which he presented in "Soul Story" was as if we reached a point in our journey where he saw a fork in the road where I could see none but whereby if there be such a fork, he decided to go down the road I would not ever consider as an option. BUT! (Yes, the all important "but"), what Tim has done for me is further opened my eyes (again) to the fact that each of us think independently and what is important is that each of us can (and thankfully do) form our own views and opinions on such matters, especially about the unprovable (or yet to be proven) - that which is of the realm of philosophy.

    What I have come to gain from the direction Tim chose is to realize the importance of point of view more than ever. By incorporating the concept of paralogical (Tim's term which I believe he invented) into my consideration of "soul" whereby I began to explore all the main questions about life an saw that by adding "soul" to the mix, I could now explore it all via three pints of view instead of the prior two (BIG "ME" and Sam Hunter (Tim Freke, you and others), his one life), I now looked at life "trilogically" (yes, inspired by Tim's term) and where I was disappointed with the direction Tim took, I have been able to see that Tim seems to have focused upon "the looking at it all" from the single POV of material, physical life whereby the "imaginal" springs from and forms "soul."

    What has given me the opportunity to change my view of Soul Story from disappointment and rejection is that I was able to see that from the point of view of physicality, his theory "could" be supported. Let me summarize what I believe Tim to be saying.

    Potentiality births physicality. Physicality began at "the big bang." In the course of evolution, organic individuated beings arose in an individuated species where some among these organic beings have developed the mental capability to imagine a solidification of their individuation that would survive the death of their physical being and that the eventual outcome is that "we" create "God" and that "in the end" God would be all and only, love.

    So potential births physicality, physicality births the ability for individuated consciousness to develop to a point where it can birth a vehicle within which elements of its individuation can one day survive "death" and that as all this is happening, God is born and eventually God grows up, solidifies, etc. and that God would turn out to be one thing - Love.

    I resolved my huge problems by considering this as a possible story if a.) there are other stories that can also be just as true using the same premise as is used to support the "both/and" idea and b.) that the key to it all is POV. I am compelled to admit that my thinking here is heavily influenced by the overwhelming power and weighting of the "Sam Hunter" POV. And as paralogical thinking has assisted me in doing, I (as Sam Hunter) have been able to reduce the weight of this single POV. But my next natural step had been to consider the POV of the conceptual "soul." So the last few years I contemplated all these things from three different POVs - that which I refer to as a.) "the timeless, formless eternal one life, b.) Sam Hunter (and his one life that begins in material realm physicality and is limited to such and... c.) "the soul" that I wish to believe would survive death and that if so, may very well have existed prior to the birth of this one physical life (note that I do not argue for order as the argument, to me, depends on the POV of each... thus trilogical).

    So by looking at each of these from each of these various points of view, I have come to see them as having different explanations and properties which, if put these up against the other, might appear to contradict the other. But because I also adopted the ability to see things paralogically, it was easy for me to see things "trilogically." So what was difficult for me was that it seems to me that Tim's Soul Story not only gives no consideration to "soul story" from the POV of the soul (except soul as something born out of developed consciousness), but also seems to throw out the significance of the timeless, formless eternal one life (consciousness which can also be written as "Consciousness" with the Big "C" which I may sometimes do simply because I have decided that the argument for idealism is superior). He now points to it as all and only "potential." He appears to have decided that it is only important to look at soul from the POV of the one physical life. And thus come forth with a theory that soul is birthed out of a developed individuated expression of consciousness. Yet also, Tim writes in support of reincarnation. This begs a very difficult question, "who among us has developed an individuated consciousness that has been able to produce a soul?" And, "who among us may be reincarnated and who isn't?" This presents the idea that some of us have a soul, some don't and some are forming their soul such that the "thing" survives their death for the very first time. So maybe this could be true but also, how can society fairly operate under that type of foundational assumption? I see too many people pointing the "souless finger" at others while believing what they cannot prove, that they have such! Scary IMO.

    I think what blows my mind the most is that I had convinced myself that Tim would be taking the next step that I took from paralogical to trilogical. Alas, I would classify the new philosophy as uni-logical and that seems to be a complete shift in the way Tim explores the questions of life. I would have been fine with it if Tim had put as much focus on soul from a potential POV of "soul" whereby time is not assumed to be like we experience it in physicality. For example, could "soul" have one step in what might be its own type of "continuum" and one step out? How could any of us say? But to not even consider such explorations and to throw all of an entire new philosophy and book and all the subsequent discussions, etc. behind one single foundational POV that is all based on a "material world beginning" 13.x billion years ago as he often cites... I was pretty shocked.

    OK, so as my wife would ask me... "Whose problem is this?" And the answer is, Ok, Its my problem." And the reason is that Tim has the right to explore the deepest questions of life as he wishes and that includes whatever direction he goes. If it were not for Tim Freke, I doubt I would have ever been at the right place and of the right open mindedness to have discovered Skeptiko and specifically Bernardo Kastrup whose book, Why Materialism is Baloney may be the most personally transformative book I have ever read. But I will always view Tim's Lucid Living as equally transformative. I just can't understand how Tim..., who, if I were a betting man I would have bet big bucks that Tim's cosmological, metaphysical world view was based on idealism (and with his exploration of science, quantum theory, etc.probably a monistic idealist) ...could place all the focus on his exploration of soul as emanating from materiality! But it also reveals something to me about "Sam Hunter" and his need for others think like him. Clearly Sam Hunter and the soul (if I have one yet!) that is experiencing this one life has much more "growing up" to do (hopefully an eternal journey... at least that is the way I feel about life and the possibility of potentially eternal individuated existence at this time).

    OK, so I only wrote 2.5 pages... and I had yet to touch on some of the comments aimed at Tim and his livelihood and thus his motivations, etc. (whereby I will be defending Tim vigorously).
     
    dpdownsouth and Laird like this.
  4. Sam Hunter

    Sam Hunter New

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    24
    Home Page:
    I cannot know for certain what someone's motivations might be. I am an odds maker by trade. Long ago I started applying the same methods I use to making odds on a sporting event to making odds on just about everything.

    One thing that is always the case when making odds about anything is that there are two or more possibilities. That means that no selection can ever be 100% possible or 0% possible. But a selection can be all but 100% possible almost but not completely impossible.

    I have found that when it comes to human beings, black and white never exists. Its always a shade of grey. Sometimes the shade is so dark it could be confused for being black and visa versa yet still... there is no black and white.

    I have been a path follower of Tim Freke since 2005. I have read a good dozen of his books, some more than once . I have listened to dozens of interviews and have watched dozens of his videos. I have read his website and much of his newsletters. Sadly, because I have lived far from the UK, it has never been practical and possible to attend one of his events (I have lived in the Caribbean, Central America and Texas the last few decades). But I tell the reader all of this because I want to qualify my next statement.

    I believe I know Tim Freke pretty well. And so I am going to say some things about Tim where I am also going to place odds on these things being pretty much accurate. Note my odds rare meant to reflect "degree" and not "black or white truth."

    The first thing is this. Is Tim Freke sincere.

    Yes - 99%
    No - 1%

    Does Tim do what he does to make money OR is making some money a secondary result of what Tim does.
    To make money - 5%
    Done because he loves doing it - 95%

    Does Tim compromise relating his spiritual explorations to ensure he makes more money and/or avoids alienating those who follow his work among which many also pay for books, courses, retreats, etc.
    Allows himself to compromise - 10%
    Stays true to his path and is honest in his works as to where his path takes him - 90%

    Is Tim motivated because he is enthusiastic about his messages, that they can be motivating and helpful to some among the general public whereby perhaps the world becomes a better place - Hoping to have a positive impact on others - 99%.
    Motivated by making money - 1%

    Does Tim have a dark side or is Tim a perfect angel?
    Yes - 99%
    No - 1%
    (the above is based on observing Tim to be a normal human whose feathers can be ruffled just like the rest of us. In addition, Tim has countless times told us he has bad moments, maybe loses his patience, etc. etc.... just like the rest of us)

    OK, so I could add more but now I wish to share another observation.

    Tim has always been incredibly (and bravely) open about his own personal journey and the slings and arrows he has faced in his own life. A few years back I sensed Tim being greatly impacted emotionally and on other levels with regards to his mother and her eventual passing. In fact it is my opinion that his experience with all that had a great deal to do with his motivation to explore the next territory in which he ventured (that he always shared with us) - which turned out to be "the soul."

    Perhaps I am better able to relate as I believe Tim and I are at most two years in age different, maybe just one... and so my own journey into exploring what might be soul also began about the same time. Seeing my own mortality in ever clearer focus seems to have played a role. The passing of a dear loved one can also press the matter.

    That Tim took this journey (and took it so darn seriously) coupled with (just my opinion of which I could be wrong) that Tim understands his gifts and that he is really good at articulating his views and sharing his journey where he has actually created (or at least has made them household terms in houses like mine) some unique descriptors such as "deep awake," "paralogical," "mystery experience," and many, many others... and Tim having a multitude of first hand experiences in seeing the role he has played in changing lives and this cannot be emphasized enough - Tim's Mystery Experience retreats and other events he has produced have truly changed countless peoples lives for the better... it makes total sense to me that Tim would think he could introduce his "Emergent Sprituality" and that perhaps it might also help folks like all his other works. That, at least, is what I think the Tim Freke I think I know would have thought despite the fact that where his philosophy had taken him, if he does end up "getting it all together" where he could present it as a stand alone, next stage and do so with such vigor and enthusiasm as he has done.

    And I step back from my own "difficulty" as, for me, this direction seems like a step backwards, what I can say and what I believe Tim has also acknowledged is that Tim's Emergent Spirituality may in fact be a much needed next step for countless folks who may need and thus benefit from it. To me, it would be folks who either never really questioned what might be their foundational metaphysical cosmological world view and who either never felt any affinity to what the religions might point to (and I certainly can understand that) and thus would need to have the type of case building as Tim has taken up in Soul Story just to open their mind to soul in the first place. And that if a reader like this "took the bait" they might take seriously the opportunity to build character as perhaps the journey might not end after all (at least not at physical death). If even one person were convinced and made an effort to improve their character, this is only a plus for the rest of us.

    That Tim may properly assess the reach he has developed and then do "soul story" as he has done is an awesome thing and I am very grateful.

    One might ask why I wrote all the above. I wrote it because of some of the comments I read here questioning Tim's motives as to this or that, as to why he is "pro" some of the suggested protocol adaptations recommended by the climate change advocates and why he may be more accepting of the "mainstream explanations" for things like 9/11. The guy I think I know doesn't compromise to sell books or protect a loyal following. What makes far more sense to me is that he has spent so much time doing what he does best - sharing the Big Love that he really hasn't had much time after family to even do the research as some of us have who might conclude differently about these matters. Also, I can imagine that if I happened to have different life circumstances where I was able to spend night and day beyond just my family (and I have no doubt family has come second from time to time) focusing on "figuring out the mystery of life" coupled with having the innate talent of articulation and a special kind of charisma which, when combined, raise audiences that, over time, convert to devoted audiences whereby almost all my energies are focused in that one direction... how attractive would it be to delve into the darkest sides of humanity and all the possibilities surrounding that?

    Perhaps its not just a matter of not spending much time looking at any of that, perhaps it also might be a matter of not wanting to do so as Tim seems to have found Wonderland to some extent, he sure helped me discover it (though I only hold a few toes down in it). Why put attention on the worst (or at least possible worst) of humanity when one is so gifted as Tim is at sharing love for life.

    I just had to write all this. I am letting out what has built up inside me for almost two years now. Its really hard to a.) have a difficult reaction to something like Soul Story like I did but b.) see all the hell Tim has taken over it when he's been so positively impactful for countless of us and where c.) it is likely Soul Story has and will benefit others and in fact benefit folk that have never even discovered Tim or his works prior.

    As for the binary choice of "materialism" vs "idealism" I make the odds -

    98% - Idealism (consciousness is preeminent, is fundamental to all)
    1% - materialism (some inexplicable cosmic accident occurred because it could and that what has arisen from this accident is organic beings that have developed to the point they can actually consider all this).
    1% - something yet to be considered
     
    dpdownsouth and Laird like this.
  5. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    246
    Home Page:
    I think of Virginia Wolf's "A Room of One's Own" here. The good in materialism is there is no other way to free oneself from the inherent servitude of the body if materialism is not a cornerstone of the culture.

    As a modern woman I could not have chosen to forgo my chosen biological destiny of motherhood without materialism. I would not be at liberty to choose my day-to-day activities as I now do. I would not have the choice to turn away from inherent evil if that evil helped to procure my livelihood, if not for materialism.

    It is a marvelous miracle, whether of modernity or otherwise, materialism it would seem, that I can say now, I choose to walk away from the system, and I can, until the end of my days, b/c those who came before me saw this might be a cultural necessity.

    B/c my ancestors were incredibly materialistic, I now have choices very few other women outside Western culture have ever dared dream. And what I immediately learned from that was, It's not enough, not even close. It means nothing, once you really have it. And that's its most alluring power and greatest beauty.
     
    dpdownsouth and Laird like this.
  6. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    255
    Home Page:
    There are some cultures that are deeply immersed in material reality as a necessity, and from that comes great expressions of craft and imagination and artistic and moral beauty. But they are not necessarily materialistic. They still have a deep spiritual foundation. Materialism, as a philosophy, denies the spiritual. Some of the most spiritual cultures are masters of material reality. We celebrate Celtic heritage through its beautiful material art. It gives us the hint that what inspires the art is deeply spiritual. The ancient Egyptians have given us a legacy of enduring mystery in physical form. We are still in awe of the pyramids.

    Please do not mix materialism as a spirit denying dogma with materiality, which can be a celebration of material existence. In the latter, spirit informs the transformation of the material to celebrate and signal the spiritual dimension of our reality. Where as the former repudiates that dimension entirely.
     
  7. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    246
    Home Page:
    I'm glad to hear this put so succinctly, b/c I've read conversation here on the forum about this difference, but I'm quite repetition-oriented in my learning, and I just don't read well online like I do with paper books.

    There has been a spirit-denying aspect of my upbringing for sure, but it was more this commercialization of spiritual I guess, the 'gaming' of it--Ouija board at parties and the 'weird' New Age uncle and fortune tellers predicting the races and numerologists on Dr. Phil.

    It seems there much cross-over between the celebration of material existence and the spirit-denying dogma of our current age, no? Our modern concept of spirituality is based in the gaming of it, that is in making it acceptable to our material world.
     
  8. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,134
    Yes, you draw a useful distinction between materialism and materiality. Useful, but not necessarily true in an absolute sense, especially if one looks at the world from an Idealistic POV. The issue for me, as an idealist, that arises is that it seems to represent an inherently dualistic view of reality, in that it tends to reify two separate domains: materiality and spirituality.

    I think it's David Bailey who said that dualism is a better (more coherent?) philosophy than monistic materialism, in which latter there's no space for the spiritual. As far as our everyday experience is concerned, it does at least seem that there are the two realms of materiality ("physicality" as Sam Hunter put it) and "spirituality". Hence dualism does at least honour the way we experience the world: as if there's an external ("material") one that is public and sharable, and an internal one ("spiritual") that is completely private and can only be "shared" (neglecting for present purposes the possibility of telepathy) through communication of our inner states and feelings using language.

    We don't usually share our inner states, so much as our descriptions of them. Sometimes, through perception and interpretation of the spoken or written word of others, we may come to discover that they experience certain things in a very similar way to us. Indeed, they may phrase things so well that for the first time we are able to understand and give voice to our own perceptions. Hence, in a way, language can sometimes be a vehicle for telepathy. I'm sure we've all experienced moments when a well-turned phrase managed to articulate something which so far we'd been able to grasp only inchoately, if at all.

    I'd say, from the POV of an idealist, that the words "materiality" and "spirituality", though sometimes useful descriptors (faithful at least to apparent reality), are, in and of themselves, inaccurate. There aren't two separate realms. The artist creates from the apparently material something that represents some aspect of his, or his culture's, internal perception and/or interpretation of the world. The true scientist can also be an artist in that he seeks to understand the world, and, like the artist, to articulate that understanding in a way that others find beautiful or useful.

    Everything we think or do has a degree of its own beauty or utility. We tend to think in terms of a scale that can go from the extreme of positivity to the extreme of negativity, passing through a point of neutrality, of zero. But instead, we could think in terms of the Kelvin scale, which goes from an absolute zero to a potentially infinitely high temperature. There is no intermediate point of neutrality, except as set by some arbitrary POV of perception, such as, say, the freezing point (or for that matter the boiling point) of water. We think in terms of centigrade rather than Kelvin. That's why we create the concepts of good and evil, and why the concepts haven't always been the same: today it's deemed OK in the West to be homosexual, whereas in the past, it was legally punishable, and there are many other culturally, consensually agreed points of reference.

    As for absolute zero, we can approach, but never achieve, absolute evil. There's always at least a scintilla of truth and beauty in everything we do, however far beyond consensual norms we might go. Lest you think I believe there's no inherent merit in being at a million degrees as compared with one degree "Kelvin", I don't. The hotter the better, and I believe there's an evolutionary imperative to do everything we can to warm ourselves up.

    But we have free will and don't have to evolve if we don't want. To evolve requires effort, and if we want to be lazy, no one can stop us. More subtly, perhaps it is the free will that enables evolution to occur in the first place.

    Enough with the metaphors; I don't quite know how I arrived here from where I began.
     
    Michael Patterson likes this.
  9. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,134
    This video by Tim Freke, which I just stumbled across, seems to offer the most succinct summary of his current position:



    Neglecting his seeming focus on and acceptance of the consensually agreed age of the universe (13 billion years or so), he offers a pretty story which I suppose there could be something to. What is the ultimate reality? The potential of the universe, out of which successive waves of existence have emerged: matter, interactivity of matter, biology, sentience, imagination, non-duality. But it all seems to depend on time, the present moment being an accumulation of all the time up till now.

    Frankly, I'm not sure I agree with his overall vision and despite his views on the paralogical (a word that he doesn't seem to have invented), I'm struck how, despite that, he tries to make his scheme seem logical.

    I don't know, maybe I haven't yet fully understood what he's trying to say, but I'm not yet quite convinced by his arguments. Non-duality seems to have to have been around all the time, and if it has, then the chicken came first, laid an egg, and that is gradually turning into the chicken again. There might be no emergence, rather a striving for a rediscovery of the self of the universe, by the self of the universe, as a predestined inevitability.
     
    Sam Hunter likes this.
  10. Sam Hunter

    Sam Hunter New

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    24
    Home Page:
    Whooops on my statement that Tim created the word. What I should have clarified is that it seems Tim created a new meaning for the word. Looking it up in Merriam-Webster

    Definition of paralogical

    : containing paralogism : illogical

    and so then looking up paralogism

    : a fallacious argument

    The way I believe Tim uses the word is to say that in cases where you have two things whereby if one is true, we would logically assume the other cannot be true... if it is paralogical (as Tim uses the word), each are true and both are true considering the other... co-existent opposites. His original example is based on the Niels Bohr wave/particle experiment conclusions.... saying it is both a wave and a particle and that both are true.

    He then suggested we consider ourselves to be not only the obvious, in his case, Tim Freke and his one life but also that which he also identified to be which I prefer to point to with the metaphorical words - "the timeless, formless eternal one life."

    What I got out of the presentation he made... well heck, here it is -



    I also had assumed from reading all his last 6 or 8 books up to that point that he had to have a world view founded in "idealism." Yet it seems Tim's journey never settled on idealism and instead look at everything as either potential or fulfilled potential and the only thing that is fulfilled potential is what we believe we know as to the material realm in that "in the beginning" a hydrogen atom could not sing opera, much less experience individuated complex consciousness. And so Tim has concluded that be there something such as a soul, it must be created by a being that has reached an advanced stage of consciousness as a being that is from a species that has evolved from the big bang to now to the point it could produce such a being where their imaginal abilities have developed the ability to form the soul container whereby they would then transcend death as that same individuated being... which then could reincarnate in the future.

    To simplify - there's "Big Mind" then there's the "me, Tim Freke (or Sam Hunter in my case) and then... perhaps, a soul could be birthed.

    So think about this - three versions of being, one of which many here have probably done their own exploration of "that which words can only point to," Tim calls "Big Mind" (among other things) and his one physical life being the second thing and then the third thing, soul.

    Big Mind

    Tim Freke

    The soul that either existed and reincarnated as Tim Freke or the soul that was birthed by Tim Freke

    Three points of view - I have come to use the terms:

    ME (for Big Me)

    Me (for the soul which is experiencing perhaps infinite "lifetimes/realities, etc)

    me (for Sam Hunter and his one life).

    Where I go on a different track than Tim is that I am open minded that when I look at these three, ME, Me and me, I realize that each have their own POV (with the caveat that ME cannot have such as ME is a mystery filled with paradox... but I can explore all three in consideration of each other.

    For example, I can theorize that consciousness is fundamental to all. BIG MIND indeed. I can then understand that BIG MIND has no ability to know itself without playing some sort of trick on itself. Example: it isolates a portion of itself that can then be tricked into thinking it is separate from itself so that it can consider that which it does not think is itself without ever realizing it is itself observing itself. All of this being impossible when we use logic within form yet by playing with the idea anyways, what I can see is that BIG MIND might trick itself from being "the ONE" into thinking it is many. Each of the many knows it is "the One" but what has now been introduced into the picture is "individuation." Yet also, physicality has not yet been needed and thus in this imaginal exploration, though "form" has been introduced (and individuation now exists), we have yet to experience birth and death like we do here in the material realm.

    To my thinking and coming from the direction of BIG MIND, I have BIG MIND and "soul" (the word I use for an individuation of BIG MIND) and I don't need a big bang or 13 billion years to get to the point where a manifestation of life has developed to a point it can birth a soul. BUT, this is looking at it all from a direction that is emanating from BIG MIND (something it cannot do) but also is looking at it all from the realm of soul. And so certainly "soul" could experience its own form of continuum, yes? It may not do so in some form of unitized measurement system like we see time in our material realm as interpreted and scaled and measured by humans on a single planet at a point in theoretical time that is a blip compared to all the time we believe has passed before we could ever consider something like measurable time.

    And so my point is that perhaps a soul may have three feet. One placed in BIG MIND, one placed in the realm of the soul and one placed in a life experience where that third foot is actually infinite third feet with each placed in a unique individuated experience in the material realm where there's birth and death.

    All these words are meant to demonstrate that the version of Soul Story as told by Tim may very well be valid if viewed from the POV of life in the material realm but that it is not the only valid story.

    Bringing it all back to idealism versus materialism (as Bernardo Kastrup would define each to be), it seems so much more beneficial to be open minded to idealism because you can still have a complete appreciation and respect for the material realm, you can still enjoy it (as I mostly do) whereas the alternative is, at least for me, bleak.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2018
  11. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    752
    Tim Freke is an Atheist Materialist.

    Done.
     
  12. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    255
    Home Page:
    I think you have touched what should be a raw nerve here. So much of our spirituality is about denying the material. But I think that came about as a cultural reaction - well before we were infected by the Buddhist ideals. I suspect that the Christian aversion to material comfort arose because the adherents were from the upper class, and had excesses to be offended by.

    In my youth I had a passion for communism that lasted until I discovered history. But I grew up with habits conditioned by early poverty, and a passion for the natural world. The Buddhist ideal of poverty appealed to me. But then, as I matured, I developed a liking for enough - and maybe a little bit more. In a way this harks forward to the not very popular last Skeptiko show. It was okay to want enough for me and the folk I cared for.

    I think we do game the idea of what is okay. We are forced to come to terms with greed/generosity in our own culture. And that's sandwiched between the really crass materialism of the so-called elites and prosperity gospel nonsense. There must be a moral argument about poverty - but none fits any of the propositions we dare put, in my view. What is the spiritually acceptable position to take? Are we everybody's keeper? When is it okay to say 'I deserve this' when others have so much less?

    These are questions we do not ask as a culture in any coherent way. That is because our foundations of virtue and morality tend to be self-serving, and so varied that a shared discourse would generate so much angst and risks of having to be authentic I do not think our 'leaders' could endure the challenge.

    The physical world that is not modified by human activity is a place of immense beauty. When we are let loose on it we reduce it all to a hideous commercial wasteland. Exploitation of other lives for profit is the most problematic of our activities. So I think we need to distinguish between physical/material life as it is, and how it is when modified and mediated by human conduct.

    Being in the world where there is a direct contact between 'reality' and personal experience brings hazards that we must accept by the very fact of being in the world. But one of the characteristics of human beings rarely acknowledged and discussed is our ability to so constantly transform environments we are the primary change agents - and hence we have notional control over the destiny of the environments we control.

    It could be said, therefore, that removing oneself (into a monastery for example) from the trials and tribulations of the physical life is an abdication of a personal human responsibility for our collective impact.

    On a personal level, I have 'chosen' (I didn't really, it just happened) a life of service in the public sector. I am not saying that being a yogi and mediating in an ice cave is not okay - just that it is not more okay than being an 'umble servant of the public.

    Maybe we need those who dis the material and those who celebrate it, and all those in between, to generate a complete picture of what is possible in being human in a physical body?
     
  13. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    255
    Home Page:
    I suspect more a theistic materialist. I say we have had 500 years, at least of theistic materialism. And it has become an unadmitted class of philosophy that Tim has been trying to refine as a modern way of thinking that allows you to have your cake and worship it too.

    Alex thinks I am being harsh on Tim. But he has put his ideas out into the public sphere, so they are fair game for criticism. I think he has invented problems that do not exist and come up with solutions nobody needs. But I have to be fair and balanced and say that similar criticisms have been made about people who have later be shown to be right. I am cool about being wrong here.
     
    Richard Cox likes this.
  14. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    255
    Home Page:
    I think our existence is inherently binary. The yes/no option works for me. Do I want sugar in my coffee? No. Materialism asserts there is no spirit. Is there? Yes/no? There may be subtle arguments to be had and distinctions to be made. That's why the yin/yang symbol is up there with the cross for me.

    I do not create separate domains of reality and neither does materialism. For me matter and spirit are real. For materialism matter is all. Ergo I am not dualistic, but monistic. Monism is oxymoronic unless it is a governing philosophy - all is finally one. Kabbalah (however you spell it) sets out a decent logic - the One divides into two and then on into infinity, but never ceases to be the One.
     
  15. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    255
    Home Page:
    Wow! This is a bucket full of powerful ideas. Is reality on 'the spectrum' in there way we think of autism? Does zero apply here? Can there be a zero point for being human? We would like to think there is so we could disown aspects of human expression like psychopathy.

    Our religion has given us the out in the idea of irredeemable evil, from which the redemptive power of Christ is excused. That is not a theological proposition, but a political one. Forgiveness is a toxic political virtue when the masses are baying for blood and vengeance.

    There are agents of ill who enter the human world. But their acts are on a different scale. They are not human, so they can not be inhuman. They see humans as prey, and their acts are rightful in their domain. They are material and immaterial in nature.

    We need scales of risk and virtue. Michael makes an important point. There is no zero point in the human scale - we cannot disown our own to the other-than --human. But that also means that we cannot compare human and other-than-human.

    And then there are the cross-overs we need to consider. Who occupies the human physical form? Christianity is predicated on the proposition that the 'Son of God' took human form. That allows that other 'divine' agents could do the same. The 'Watchers' of the Bible, now popularly known as the Annunaki are a case in point. To breed with human women you'd expect a compatible biology is needed (or was it all 'virgin birth'?).

    We don't have the luxury that the (mostly tabloid) media asserts - to consign alleged miscreants to the status of being other than human. Our compassion must embrace the worst offenders in our humanity.
     
  16. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    752
  17. dpdownsouth

    dpdownsouth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages:
    209
    Maybe I'm getting wrong end of stick here.... and I've said this before, but: I'm sure Freke is riffing on a kind of process philosophy ala Whitehead..... (and I think most of his problems would disappear if he dropped the word 'time' and used 'process' instead.)

    Source:http://www.philosopher.eu/texts/1248-2/
     
  18. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    255
    Home Page:
    I'll buy that in the sense of the sentiment you express. There's something about his take on the spiritual from both Skeptiko shows that bug me. he sounds like somebody from my days of learning to sell insurance (note that I said 'learning to sell', not selling). That was that you helped a potential customer to discover a problem they didn't know they had - and, Lo! you had the answer.

    I have a suspicion about professional authors. I have been reading in this field (the whole woo stuff) for well over 45 years, and I have read a lot of books that really served no useful purpose than satisfy a professional author's obligation to write another book. Books based on contractual obligations and a desire for an income are never as good as books based on a passion. The passion-based book has to be written.The others mostly do not.

    To me Freke tries to style himself as something he is not - a philosopher. I see him as a professional author who has come to see himself as a philosopher - and that's probably because he hasn't been too exposed to argument from people who challenge him. I have to say that I am developing a growing respect for people who post on this forum -m because they are prepared to handle challenges to their ideas - compared to professional authors who flog their books as guests on a show.

    There are times I think I'd rather listen to Alex interviewing some for the forum regulars - passionate amateurs who have no financial or reputational stake in their performance - just honest thought. For instance, Charlie, I'd love to hear you and Alex talking.
     
    Sam Hunter and Charlie Primero like this.
  19. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    752
    Hypocrisy drives me nuts. I would probably benefit from psychological counseling to discover why hypocrisy triggers me so much.

    I suspect this unfortunate condition is the result of being beaten by school teachers in Louisiana in the 1970's when I was a kid. ..."We can be late to class, chain-smoke in the lounge, and wear our shirts untucked, but your private parts will be violently assaulted with a wooden paddle for doing the same".

    For years I listened to Tim Freke on Miguel Conner's God Above God podcast, never knowing Freke was an Atheist like I was. I read Freke's books, but found them tedious. I wrote him off as a hack.

    I did not become irritated by Freke until I recently discovered that he sells Spirituality to Oldsters via seminars and retreats. I am a Teacher by profession. I travel around and teach seminars on Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, gun fighting, and Crisis Communication for Law Enforcement Officers and Mental Health workers.

    In our industry there is nothing we hate more than martial arts frauds and fake Military Veterans taking advantage of our customers. An Atheist Materialist like Freke selling Spirituality is the same thing.

    It's fraudulent. It's immoral. It's wrong. It drives me up the wall.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2018
  20. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    255
    Home Page:
    "It's fraudulent. It's immoral. It's wrong. It drives me up the wall."

    I get whee you are coming from here. But I think I'm is sincere, rather than a 'fraud'. For me people who make a living flogging ideas to customers always risk putting their interests first. Not a lot seem to question their own motives, but some do. The business of 'spiritual' seminars and the like is problematic because it is easy to influence people in an evangelical way - believe the ideas I am telling you.

    I have less an issue with the fact that Tim generates an income from this kind of enterprise and more of a concern about his content. Personally, I don't think his content, from what I have heard, is a good product. But then, I'd say the same thing about a lot of folk. I simply have an issue with people who teach content, rather than approach. Its like the Mormon missionaries who turn up on my door trying to sell me Mormonism only, and not the idea that I should develop a spiritual life.

    Its the risk of a conflict of interest. Its the insurance sales man's trick of helping you find a problem you didn't know you had - and then (surprise, surprise) producing the solution. I don't know whether Tim does that. So much depends on what he sells, how and why.

    The conflict of interest thing is a moral issue. As is the question as to whether the audience/customer is vulnerable or not. Having a conflict of interest and preying on vulnerable customers is not a good thing. It certainly happens in the spiritual market place. But I would imagine that would be a deeply contested thing - when a true believer is deeply offended that their sincere mission of soul salvation is characterised as immoral. But then again, is that not the very heart of a free enterprise system?

    How often are people who genuinely see themselves as people of principle considered by others to be veritable embodiments of evil? I mean it is good that you or I might believe that we are moral people of high principle, but how do we handle others, who, with equally deep sincerity, think we are evil? Do we become mortal enemies? How do we deal with that?
     
    malf and Sam Hunter like this.

Share This Page