From: jimruttshow8596
The discussion on the nature of reality and perception explores fundamental philosophical concepts, including the relationship between ontology (the study of being) and epistemology (the study of knowledge), and the distinction between subjective and objective reality [00:13:00].
Reality as Relationship
A core idea presented is that reality is not merely objective or subjective, but rather exists in the relationship between subject and object [01:03:00]. This perspective challenges the Western bias of mapping reality strictly to the object [00:14:17].
“For him reality is the relationship between the subject and the object. It is not strictly mapped to the object which is a a western bias in the last 500 years.” [00:14:12]
This relational view suggests that objects (the “dancers”) and their relationships (the “dance”) are intimately interconnected, and discussing one without the other is “nonsensical” [00:15:10].
The Problem of Decontextualization
A “substance ontology” implicitly assumes that an object can exist independently of relationships, leading to a “reductionist move” of decontextualization [00:27:02]. While this is functionally useful in science to isolate variables [00:27:24], it creates a mistaken presupposition that an object qua object is a valid thing in and of itself [00:27:46].
The argument is made that the very notion of relationship intrinsically invokes the “relata” (the things in relationship), meaning one cannot conceive of a relationship without implicitly including its constituent parts [00:26:08]. Conversely, attempting to imagine “pure substance” without relationship inevitably leads to contradictions, as relationship “keeps showing up” [00:34:40].
The speaker emphasizes that reality itself is the relationship, asserting that this is “the most real” aspect [00:28:44]. The deeply ingrained “groove of an objective substance sensibility” in Western thought often leads to an implicit importation of substance ontology, even when attempting to move beyond it [00:29:26].
Hierarchical Concepts and Ontological Primitives
Understanding reality involves recognizing a “hierarchical stack of Concepts” [00:12:07]. Deeper concepts necessarily imply more superficial ones; for instance, “velocity” imports concepts of “position,” “change,” and “time” [00:12:38]. The goal is to identify a “necessary bottom concept,” an “onto-epistemological event” that precedes the split between ontology and epistemology [00:13:04].
Fundamental concepts at a deep level include:
- Being and Becoming (Change) [00:13:30]
- Unity and Multiplicity [00:13:49]
- Sameness and Difference [00:13:52]
- Continuity and Symmetry [00:13:58]
- Reality (as the relationship between subject and object) [00:14:06]
These concepts are considered more fundamental than space and time [00:15:27], which themselves depend on deeper ideas like distinction (for space) and dynamic (for time) [00:21:32]. The notion of “oneness” and “twoness” is proposed as more fundamental than time, as time itself does not necessitate “oneness” or “twoness” [00:16:47].
The argument is that “relationship” is the “ontological primitive,” the “bootloader of all the rest of our both conceptual and ontological characters” [00:07:58]. While this “strong form relational ontology” is contested by many philosophers, including possibly Heidegger, Russell, and Whitehead, the speaker maintains its foundational role [00:08:18].
Relationship to Religion and Faith
The philosophical framework of unity, multiplicity, and relationality is then mapped to the Christian Trinity [00:37:19], which consists of:
- Unity: The “godhead” or “wholeness” of God [00:37:48].
- Multiplicity: The “three persons” or “hypostases” [00:37:53].
- Relationality: The intrinsic relationships among the persons [00:37:59].
The concept of hypostasis is clarified as “instance” or “instantiation” rather than “person,” suggesting that every material or concrete example of unity, multiplicity, and relationality (e.g., a marriage or a company) is an instance or participation in this more basic structure of the Trinity [00:44:06].
The Logos and Cosmic Unfolding
The second person of the Trinity, the Logos, is understood as that from which “all forms of logos” and “every form of incarnation” participate [00:46:21]. This includes all narratives and the very structure of creation, encompassing the “language of nature” [00:54:57]. The Logos represents the “hypostatic union,” where “top-down constraints” (from the transcendent/first person) enable and disable certain possibilities within the domain of investigation [00:55:16].
The discussion parallels this theological view with the scientific story of the universe’s emergence:
- An origin event (Big Bang) with low entropy and high density [00:57:32].
- The unfolding of the laws of physics leading to the formation of elements, stars, and planets [00:57:58].
- Increasing complexity over billions of years, through emergence, as exemplified by the formation of complex molecules and life [00:59:21].
This scientific narrative, including “lawfulness unfolding that does not violate the lawfulness but adds new things to the lawfulness which we call emergent,” is seen as “entirely congruent” with the theological description of reality [01:06:19]. The speaker argues that the Trinity provides the “logical necessity” for anything that can be called a “world” [02:08:27].
Faith as Existential Commitment
“Belief” is distinguished from “faith” (Greek: pistis) [01:27:29]. While belief can be a “nominalist set” of words or ideology, faith is defined as an “existential commitment” [01:26:18]. Drawing from Plato, pistis refers to an “embodied, deeply intimate relationship with some domain of reality” gained through engaged experience, akin to “mastery” [01:36:18]. It is a “well-honed, harmonious, rich, nuanced, subtle, intimate relationship” [01:38:53].
“Faith is livingness” [01:28:18]
Therefore, living “without faith” in the traditional sense of adhering to specific doctrines does not mean living without pistis. Instead, engaging deeply with the world and acquiring mastery cultivates this “faith” [01:39:35]. The notion of “religion” (religio) as “binding together” is viewed as a human construction to cope with being separated from the “wholeness of life” [01:40:45]. True Christian practice, however, is presented as entering into “full, rich, nuanced, complete faith relationship with embodied relationship with the actual whole of reality as it comes to meet us” [01:41:44].
This perspective suggests that reality is “capable of relationship,” and that this relationship is not impersonal but “includes the personal,” fostering an “I-Thou relationship with reality” [01:45:21].