28 thoughts on “Tangents with Chris Ryan”

1. Thanks for introducing me to Chris Ryan. I went on to watch the second interview, and Tom, you are such a gracious guest. I love your explanations to the questions from an educated and articulate host, but one I sensed doesn't quite get what science is really about. Nevertheless, I will be exploring Chris Ryan's work. He has an important role to play in these next years.

2. Interesting conversations there, I listened to both a few hours ago. Since then, I've consumed some mind-altering drugs (alcohol and tobacco)… You and Chris mentioned mushrooms. I've done various mushrooms, MDMA, LSD, DMT etc – such substances *can* widen one's perspective, so may be worth a try – but I would recommend taking them with another person {e.g. your wife or some friend(s)}. When I smoked DMT (by myself) I experienced a lot of weird shit – time loops, 'cartoon' demons, high-pitched voices echoing my own scrambled inner voice, terrifying hallucinations… I also 'died' at one point (my exact thoughts were "Oh my God, I'm… *dead*"). But it was a pretty quick 'trip', over in about fifteen minutes. Later, I met a friend at a shisha cafe and played a game of chess (I won!).
   Another sorry aspect of modernity *is* the 'War On Drugs'. But drugs from the shops (booze) or the pharmacist/doctor (long list including refined opiates etc) are deemed ok, because they make money for our corporate overlords…
   It's even illegal to grow or synthesize your own drugs under modernity's strict rules. It seems to me that at least part of the reason is that it's easier to control 'the masses' if they never see things from the altered states that 'psychedelics' can produce. Modernity bans them, yet free (indigenous) groups use them routinely…

3. I really enjoyed watching those videos. I liked the physics talk at the beginning of the first episode.

   Another point: A single person isn't really capable of understanding modern technology. I occasionally look at technical specifications and many of these are hundreds of pages long.

4. Great videos Tom! You're very good in this type of format. Calming and soothing. I could've easily listened to 4 more hours of you and Ryan babbling about anything. I see a podcast hosting gig in your future.

   But we'll have to get you fixed before you become famous like Joe Rogan.😊 As far as I can tell, you only have one major flaw; your take on how since we used fire for over a million years without causing a mass extinction, then that means fire might be sustainable. That kind of thinking keeps you blind to critical moment theory… that something big happened to sapiens very recently.

   I've tried to beat it into you with some previous comments but you're just too damn stubborn. LOL

   You should visit us over at un-Denial (dotcom). If you have nothing to say, just say hello. The host & audience respects the hell out of you. We're big fans of Do the Math.

   Cheers,
   Chris

   • Well, thanks—but I won't apologize for being circumspect on whether fire is an ecological dead-end. I'm glad you used "might" in your comment, staying true to my framing. It's something we can't claim to know. Certainty in either direction seems less warranted (unprovable) and more dangerous.

5. I really enjoyed these – maybe it was the touch of bat on the midnight ride, but especially so for part 2! I’ve often pondered what “smart” really means, and the intersection with what’s actually neurodivergence, or developing one way of thinking/part of the brain at the expense of others. It does seem our general definition is a very specific, siloed version of intelligence that we societally hold in far too high of esteem. The anecdote about the student effortlessly acing tests while having an otherwise dysfunctional life is a common one, and perhaps not such an anomaly – the parents who supplied those “smart” genes might be seriously lacking in other arenas when it comes to home life. The unbelievable arrogance of Silicon Valley pronatalists, worshipped for their “smarts” and aiming to gene-edit miniature versions of themselves as they now believe that’s what the world actually needs, only adds to my suspicion. It also doesn’t prevent the single-minded careerism that prevents people who could theoretically see otherwise from recognizing that growth obsession is cancerous. (I realize some of this is probably addressed in The Master and His Emissary, which I’ve gleaned enough from mentions here but haven’t read in full as it’s quite long…if there’s any possibility of a book summary post on that one, I’d be grateful 🙂) Anyways, pretty cool to have come to shroomy conclusions sans actual ingestion – I’ve known plenty of psychedelic drug users who never had anything close to similar insights and if anything were even more self-absorbed after, so I wonder if it’s more a case of contextual thinking capacity than the substances themselves, and if intention factors into it too.

   • The ultra-smart suffer a number of "kryptonite" topics that render them pretty stupid. Space conquest is one (Freeman Dyson, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, loads of others). Believing themselves to be ideal humans (worthy of cloning) may be another, although I suspect a cocktail of insecurity and self-loathing also contribute to those brews (over-the-top boasting is often a cover).

   • I just finished (yesterday) The Master and His Emissary. It is quite long but is worth reading. The Matter With Things is even longer, but is also worth reading imo.
     McGilchrist admits his left/right brain idea is only a hypothesis. I for one am convinced he is right – it explains so much of modernity and how we got here.

6. I also enjoyed these chats, Tom. I appreciated what you said about science along the way.
   One thing I have been curious to note of late is the number of “anti-modernity”-type academics/commentators converting to Christianity, or at least embracing religious thought/language of a Christian bent. Peter Kingsnorth, Iain McGilchrist, Timothy Morton, Philip Goth, to name some of those whose work I admire/respect (at least aspects of). Jesus (reportedly) said a lot of good stuff and I understand that religion has been twisted and weaponized by all sorts of people so that what ends up getting criticized as “Christianity” is not always what it actually is (or at least, not the particular version that certain people subscribe to). I wish Kingsnorth and co. nothing but good luck in trying to convince people that their version of Christianity is better than the one the nut jobs are selling. It seeks to marry Christianity with ecology rather than Modernity: “Christian ecology”.
   Having said this, there is something that really grates on me about the writings of these folk, and which I see as being somewhat hypocritical. At the same time as they seek to decouple/disentangle Christianity from modernity in people’s minds, they seek to reinforce the link between scientific materialism and modernity, rather than perhaps thinking a little harder themselves and noticing that it, too, can be decoupled from modernity (I could be wrong here – they are obviously a lot smarter than me). They all eagerly embrace the term “scientism”, which is essentially their short hand for “scientific materialism”, but a term that gives off a more sinister, cult-type vibe. They argue that they have “nothing against science”, but are adamant that "scientism" is distinct from science and really bad; scientific materialism is just a left-brain activity, a left brain-restricted approach to science (I myself now view this as a very left-brain-take on what scientific materialism/physicalism actually amounts to. It misses what is says as a whole…).
   The use of the term “materialism” in science is unfortunate, as I think you’ve said before, Tom. Materialism, of course, carries another meaning: the tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as the most or only important things. This makes it that much harder to separate scientific materialism from modernity in people’s minds, and to clarify what scientific materialism actually is “on its own”. Materialism of the science kind (the view that the universe consists only of organized matter and energy) is separable from materialism of the economic/commercial kind. “Scientific materialism” is not shorthand for “science + economic materialism” (though science in the hands of modernites often has and continues to amount to this, so I can certainly understand people’s confusion/perception. And it may be that too much scientific knowledge is just a bad thing for any human culture…).
   Science has revealed that there are particles and that they interact according to physical laws. You can’t argue with this. It’s just the way it is. It’s what the data says. It has also revealed that these particles are all inseparably interconnected (there’s your Whole right there!) and, increasingly, that the “whole thing” is just so incredibly complex as to blow the mind. This is the bit that I don’t think those that vehemently object to scientific materialism/physicalism actually get. It is not the “carving up” process that it is parodied as. It’s the interaction aspect that makes all the “parts” an inseparable “Whole”.
   People such as Morton claim that the “master-slave” concept underpins modernity and that this is part-and-parcel of the scientific materialist mindset, along with all the other terrible dualisms like subject-object, active-passive, etc. But scientific materialism, if you really think about it, says that there are no real boundaries between anything! It’s all “just” a “mess” of inseparable interacting particles. You pick up a particle and the universe responds. As John Muir said: "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." This is what scientific materialism actually says!
   Overall, I think the tangling up of science, religion and modernity in people’s minds makes modernity a really tough beast to slay. There are lots of nutjobs that instinctively understand that reinforcing this entanglement makes it that much harder to resist modernity. I understand/respect the attempts of Kingsnorth and others to detach/decouple Christianity from modernity in an effort to counter this. I think they should be insightful enough to understand that decoupling scientific materialism from modernity in people’s minds might be similarly useful. We should be railing against “science + economic materialism” (“science in bondage”), not “scientific materialism” or “scientism”. I guess Kingsnorth, McGilchrist and others would counter that they are trying to separate “true science” from modernity by seeking to ditch scientific materialism, but to me this just amounts to ditching swathes of genuine scientific findings backed up by huge amounts of data….
   Another gripe: I don’t like the way Kingsnorth and others say that scientific materialism does away with the sacred, so that all were left with is "dead matter". For me personally, the "sacredness" of the Cosmos emerges from what it actually is and has produced: a web of interacting particles that has produced awe-inspiring things over deep time through the process of evolution, including a swathe of beautiful, well-integrated life forms. I don’t feel the need to add anything extra anymore. All that hard-earned, well-integrated complexity is alone worth respecting and "worshipping". Thanks in large part to the findings of science, I am also happy to accept the limitations of my brain in the face of the unfathomable complexity of the world, and to submit to the world/nature as the “safest pair of hands” to leave our lives in.
   (Thanks Tom. I know a lot of this is just rephrasing of what you’ve said many times…)

   • This was a much longer comment than I would normally permit, but on a kind of post that doesn't generate many comments, so…

     Working backwards, "loss of sacred" can be translated to "loss of MY sacred," but who cares? Why is their notion of sacred more sacred than what the universe provides? My advice to them: drop your failed sacred and find it elsewhere (because you certainly CAN, once you stop sulking).

     I have often been amused by the charge that materialism keeps dualism alive. This is typically coming from people who have zero doubt that mind/consciousness is a real "substance" that cannot possibly be constructed from material interactions. It is then their own stubbornness that keeps dualism alive unless they are willing to denounce matter as (somehow remarkably consistent) figments of our separate imaginations—in true idealist form. A "real" materialist is perfectly happy to drop consciousness as its own "thing" and accept a materialist monism.

     My take is that these are people whose intellectual self-regard is so high that if something can't be imagined, it can't exist. Because they (or I or anyone) can't conceivably connect all the dots through the tangle of interactions established and honed over billions of years, then they reject the very *notion* that such a complexity can manifest. Sounds pretty left-brain, right? Unable to let go of a debilitating dependence on certainty…unable to acknowledge limits to cognition and that the material world might possibly outsmart us. Somehow, I have no trouble with this, because it happens ALL the time, to me! Anyway, it seems pretty arrogant to assert that if it can't fit in my brain, it can't be true.

     Finally, imagining the material world to be "dead" is a total failure of imagination and also ignorance of physics. Every morsel in the universe is to varying degrees grabby—incessantly waving their electromagnetic arms around, for instance, crying "look at me" for everyone around. These are very *active* nuggets, and eagerly assemble into collective/compatible groupings whose emergent "wavings" are distinct and attract other unique assemblages (how proteins work). Nothing at all "dead" about any of this. Unstoppable, indefatigable, interactive buzziness. Even in a rock.

   • "Materialism, of course, carries another meaning: the tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as the most or only important things." – no, that is 'materialistic'.
     Material*ism* is the belief that everything can be accounted for in terms of physical matter and the interactions between particles. There's nothing wrong with science's description of atoms, molecules etc – all true and proved by experiments. But some things can't be explained in terms of particles/materialism, such as why there is something rather than nothing. So our models can't ecompass the whole of reality – no need to worry about it.

     • Economic materialism is also commonly referred to as “materialism”
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_materialism
       I agree that science doesn’t tell us why there is something rather than nothing. But I don’t think that religion offers any insight into this either. If “God” is the answer to why there is something, then in my personal opinion, “God” may as well be shorthand for “I have absolutely no idea” or “anything one cares to dream up” because no one can prove you wrong.
       What science has delivered is a huge body of pretty much irrefutable evidence about what the universe is made of and how it works: matter and energy obeying physical laws (scientific materialism). It shows that it actually is an inseparable “Whole”, not a dead collection of separate particles, despite what the critics of scientific materialism might say.
       My main point was that It makes no sense to me why “Christian Ecologists” rail so hard against scientific materialism. To me, it comes across as disparaging the “Creation of the Creator”, if indeed there is a “Creator”. Surely God would not be impressed with that?

       • After seeing a karaoke performance of "Material Girl" recently, and observing the lyrics closely, I'm convinced Madonna is partly to blame for the conflation of economic materialism with scientific… "living in a material world" equates to "being a material(istic) girl" (or boy, I guess) 🙂

         Jokes and 80s hits aside, I've noticed the Christian ecology trend as well – in particular with Kingsnorth, who I followed via Dark Mountain long before his Covid writings and dramatic religious conversion were drawing a big new audience – and I'm glad to see it being discussed, as the fiery sermons against the material world didn't add up for me either. I'm just not sure where to land with the religious environmentalists (including writers who sound the part in their preachiness but aren't official about it, like Charles Eisenstein – another one who got a lot of attention for Covid skepticism). As much as I want for anti-modernity allies and desire to believe that they are friend (or at least not foe), I come back to agenda. What's an Orthodox like Kingsnorth's true mission now – fighting the machine, as his new book is titled, and for the more-than-human world –
         or bringing souls into the flock and encouraging the fruitful multiplication of those same earth-dominating souls? Judging by the change in writing topics over the years, he's finagled a way to treat it as one and the same, but as far as I'm concerned, all modern religions are part and product of modernity. He's not an animist, nor are any of these other folks. Plus, we're assuming they will accept us heathens as-is on their team – even if they do, is it all a guise for conversion? But, then I learn about Catholic nuns fighting for the rights of rivers, or that a prominent animal-rescue advocate is going to seminary for the purpose of using existing institutions to further his cause (not because he's 'found Jesus'). So I don't know. I do appreciate the sentiment that we might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but it strikes me as shaky common ground.

         • Predictable (and not invalid) criticisms of (modern) religion aside, the gist of the article I linked (further down) was surely correct (and also *contrary* to the 'normal' interpretation of the Bible – by saying that domination over the natural world is foolish). It seems churlish to dismiss an argument soley on the grounds of who the author is, rather than what they are saying. That's why it doesn't matter what 'Kingsnorth' or any one person says… Best to see the *Gestalt* as far as is possible.

           This paragraph (from here: https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/inside-the-bubble-of-successful-paranoia-lacanian-reflections-on-techno-capitalist-delusion/ ) rings true:

           "[M]odern science, in its alliance with capital, relinquishes the question of essence in favour of the question of function. As with Schreber’s God, it tends to totalise reality by projecting over it a luminous image of knowledge and control. Modern technocratic “expert knowledge” seeks to secure the calculability, predictability, and mastery of its objects rather than to unveil their origin. What matters is that things work; and that, in working, they yield utility and profit. In this sense, modern science fulfils the Leibnizian imperative (principium rationis sufficientis) not as metaphysics but as technē, where reason justifies itself through authoritarian efficiency rather than the search for truth. This is indeed a “successfully paranoid” discourse where quantifying, predicting, managing, and monitoring are perceived as unquestionable laws."

   • I'd argue that Christianity is part of the problem of modernity as it reinforces patriarchal hierarchy, infantilizes people's thinking with respect to death, propagates just-world fallacies, and supports human supremacy as it instills a sense of 'specialness' for our species relative to all others within the universe. – These are such central themes that a 'new interpretation' of the same old tired stories is likely insufficient to convert the belief system into anything particularly useful. – Better to throw cold water on destructive nonsense ideas and encourage more constructive mental pathways that more accurately reflect the truth.

   • Ah yes, to only accurately reflect The Truth…
     Christianity, before it was appropriated by the Romans etc, was not the destroyer of other cultures it became…
     *Orthodox* Christianity (not that I'm advocating that, or any other religion) does *not* have humans as distinct from 'the rest' of Nature. There's no reason to need any particular prescription for what to believe or not believe – just see and experience what *is*, according to your own senses.

     I did an internet search yesterday for "modernity is hell", and clicked on a few of the articles that came up.
     One, 'The Violence Of Modernity' made some great points. It is with huge reluctance that I post the link here (for obvious reasons) but bear with it – if one ignores the references to God/Christ(ianity), it could have been written by our esteemed host:
     https://glory2godforallthings.com/2025/03/24/the-violence-of-modernity-and-a-way-out/

     Like with anything, it's a case of take the good points, leave the rest.

     • By truth I mean of course reality understood to the best of our ability. While nobody has anything close to a complete understanding, there's nevertheless plenty of common ground in the 2+2=4 domain of the hard sciences for intellectually honest people to agree on.

       To make good decisions, one needs good information. Beliefs encode values which help determine the expression of behavior. If all behavior is not equal, than all beliefs are not equal.

       Humans are not the center of the universe, we are not 'like Gods', the hierarchies and misogyny proffered by the Bible don't make sense, and should we wreck this biosphere, nobody with a glowing white gown with flowing hair wearing sandals will descend on a cloud to make it all better. Magical thinking is antithetical to gaining literacy of biophysical reality and the more reasonable behavior that such literacy encouraged.

       And the Romans didn't just appropriate Christianity, they likely created, the Flavians specifically, for the purpose of social control right out of the gate. Jesus, after all, was a good obedient boy who paid his taxes and was politely crucified by the Empire, symbolically representing its indelible authority, even over God.

       https://youtu.be/zmEScIUcvz0?si=f7D7Iycps_ZqkotS

       • No one doubts that 2+2=4. 'Good information' is not necessary to see that. 'Good' decisions can be made by dint of our lengthy evolutionary history.
         What does "Beliefs encode values which help determine the expression of behavior" mean? Or "If all behavior is not equal, [then] all beliefs are not equal"?
         Humans being the centre of the universe is a relatively modern belief that even seems to be worsening, with the likes of Musk & co. 'aiming for the stars' lol.
         In these literary discussions (mediated, necessarily, by the language-dominant left hemisphere, which puts its position at an advantage) even slightly derogatory terms (such as 'magical thinking') serve as shortcuts to 'end' an argument. Therefore I now try as far as possible to avoid them.
         It's not even certain that Jesus existed, but if he did there's no way he was 'politely' crucified – crucifixion was by definition a violent death. But was 'Jesus' obedient? Didn't he throw the money lenders out of the temple etc?
         I am as opposed to the Empire as anyone, but trying to blame it all on 'Jesus' does not wash.

         • I caught that typo too, right after I hit submit, the hazards of conversing over the internet…

           If a person believes that the Earth will be remade into a perfect Eden, the sixth mass extinction and efforts at environmental protection can be hand-waved off. If a person believes that a featherless biped walked on water and broke the laws of physics, then physical limits can be ignored. The belief that other creatures were placed under humanity's authority by God himself can inspire justification for domination of the more than human world. And God's advice to 'Be fruitful and multiply' becomes maladaptive in the midst of ecological overshoot. What people believe or don't believe can influence how they behave, and if people believe in nonsense then they are not likely to behave in sensible ways.

           I'm not saying that it all comes down to Jesus, but Christianity feeds into and supports the hierarchies and power structures of modernity, and that often makes it a harmful influence.

         • Well today's, 'mainstream' Christianity might feed into and support the hierarchies and power structures of modernity, yes – does that mean it's all definitely verboten? People can hold any or no religious beliefs, it's their actions that count: I don't know what Musk, Bezos, Gates etc believe but it wouldn't alter my opinion of them.

           I linked that article because it overlaps so much with what Tom says. I feared it might trigger people though, which is *why* I qualified it "if one ignores the references to God/Christ(ianity)".

7. When I said that Jesus was politely crucified, I didn't mean that the Romans were polite, but that Jesus was polite. He told his followers to put away their swords when the authorities came to arrest him. Also, he would hardly speak to Herod or Pilate and wouldn't defend himself, telling Pilate “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above.” Evidently Pilate received his political power from God (Imperial Cult?). Then, Pilate wanted to release Jesus but the Jewish priests insisted that he be crucified "Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar." Pilate washed his hands, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it." 'And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.” – The Romans are made to seem sympathetic while subsequently, Jews have been accused of being guilty of 'deicide'.

   The Jews were a rebellious lot, leading Titus Flavius to raze Jerusalem and burn down the temple in 70AD. The Romans destroyed every scrap of Jewish scripture and the only bit that survived from the 1st century was hidden and buried in a cave, the Dead Sea Scrolls. In these texts, the sought after Messiah was more militant, similar to King David who slew Goliath. The Jews wanted a liberator who would kick the Roman's asses and force them out of Judea. The peaceful, pacifist, turn the other cheek, love thy enemy, compliant with authority, tax-paying Jesus, who affirms that Roman politicians receive their power from God doesn't fit the bill. – Good for the Romans but not for the Jews, but it's the victors who write history.

8. It is science/scientific materialism and its message of the inseparable interconnectedness of things that screams most effectively to my modernity-exposed brain: “The Cosmos is your creator and your home! An ecologically sound existence is what should be front and centre of your thinking, you meat heads!”
   We emerged from and can’t exist separate from all the hard-earned, well-integrated complexity that constitutes the Earth’s ecosystem (which includes all the inputs from the surrounding Cosmos). There is “deep wisdom” in Nature/the world/the Land/Cosmos that we should be respecting, holding in awe, listening to, “deferring” to, and being guided by.
   All creation myths and spiritual ideas are fine in my books as long as they are ecology-based or ecologically compatible, as they are for indigenous cultures. But I think that gaining a deep appreciation of what scientific materialism has to say about what we humans actually are within the context of the world/Cosmos (the only context…) offers perhaps the most valuable counter to the modernist mindset, for those that find themselves immersed/trapped within modernity as their starting point.

9. @Liza

   I share the uneasiness, Liza. Having read some of these people’s works, their deep concern for the biosphere/Earth/non-human creatures seems deeply genuine, so I can only help that they’re “new”/“old” (“Orthodox”) formulation of Christianity will help to get more people trying to live an ecologically sound existence.
   I acknowledge James’ comment that the most important thing is people’s actions. But beliefs inform action, so beliefs are important and we should ponder their pros and cons to try and make sure that people end up carrying ones that most effectively translate to acting in an ecologically sound manner. Also, what people say out loud is important, because what people hear influences beliefs. So while actions “speak” louder than words and beliefs, we shouldn’t just think that what people say and believe doesn’t matter. I understand that figuring out what these beliefs are/should be is difficult, but looking to indigenous cultures is obviously a sensible route to take, given they have by far the best track record…
   My own view is that any religion that makes God “greater” than the Cosmos in any way, shape or form (“God as Creator”) is just reinforcing dualism in its many unhelpful forms: God-Cosmos, creator-creation, mind-matter, subject-object, master-slave, us-them, active-passive, etc. I also think/agree with others that the very notion of such a supreme God stems directly from, and is strongly linked to, the modernist mindset because:
   1. the existential angst (nihilism) and loneliness that the mind experiences upon inventing the idea that it is separate from the rest of the Cosmos requires an invented solution/panacea: “God”.
   2. “God” creates a way for the “separated” mind to escape death and potentially move on to “better things”.
   3. “God is judging you” provides an effective mechanism to control people that possess modernist mindsets.
   So I can’t shake the feeling that monotheistic religions aren’t really just way-over-the-top reverence of the mind at heart (essentially mind narcissism), as well as a mechanism for the control of such mind-enamoured folk.
   But that’s just my opinion/concern. I continue to read and try to keep an open mind. Like I say, I hope “Christian Ecology” actually leads to good things for the biosphere, and that Kingsnorth and co. are able to transform something that, I agree, has purely modern origins, into something more akin to animism perhaps. I don’t think “God” can be presented as something more than, greater than, or beyond this Cosmos any longer, if you really want people to respect this physical world at the core of their being. People need to come to terms with the fact that they can’t exist separate to the word (there is no afterlife), and that death is a real and necessary part of life. There is plenty to “worship” already, without the need for a “God on high”. I notice that some of the “Christian Ecologist” have started to talk in terms of hell and heaven being potential states on earth rather than potential after-life locations. That is a good development at least, I think, as long as modernity is firmly classified as Hell-bound.

   • Yes, this, 100%! Maybe the point is it can create common ground amongst people who wouldn't otherwise consider it – like the religious affiliation gives them an "in". We've been talking about Christian ecologists but there's many in the anti-modernity/metacrisis space embracing other religions, too. I have a childhood friend who unexpectedly expressed an interest to me recently about learning more – she's Buddhist and I figure referring her to Joanna Macy and Peter Kalmus (who both talk about that spiritual influence in their work) is a good start before I pull out the big Do the Math guns 🙂

     Also @James: thanks for sharing the link, and I appreciate your efforts to get the crowd here to broaden their scope. I'll cop to being overtly cynical about the religious for reasons both personal and political, but I did give it a shot and you are correct, there is a lot of common ground, in both his take on control and suggestions for how to live that seem quite earth-friendly, and I'm *really* trying not to dwell on the hints that his view is human-focused (i.e. lamenting abortion deaths). It would be interesting to get that author's take on what's written here.

     This may be a superficial take, but it seems possible that – whether you're dealing with science or religion – the left brain taking over is where things get problematic. As soon as I have time, I'm giving Master and His Emissary another go.

     • I guess I would sum up “my”position/hope as:
       It’s time for the mind to relax back into its true home and origin: the Cosmos! And for any of its notions, beliefs, words and speech about God to transform accordingly.
       I suspect “God” will then end up being very hard to distinguish from “Spirit”, and the work of all those missionaries seeking to bring the “word of God” to indigenous cultures will then be more widely seen for what it was: an absolute travesty (“against God”, if you want to put it that way). Leave cultures and other things that are functioning well (ecologically sound) alone! They don’t need to be preached to and converted to anything. They are the ones already most in tune with “Spirit” (“God”, gods…).

     • @liza: in TMAHE, McGilhchrist does not espouse any particular religion, he says (paraphrasing a large book) only with the right brain can 'God' (whatever that is) be perceived (if at all), but the left brain then tries to capture what it *can't* know, writing down texts and scriptures which then become laws etc. – leading to destructive/oppressive religions.
       It would be interesting to get that author's (i.e. the author of 'The Violence Of Modernity') take on what's written at Do the Math, but I am not a contributor to his site (only stumbling upon the article by searching "modernity is hell").

10. Just finally here…
    I think the most accurate way to express things is that science itself has been a “slave” under modernity, although a great many scientists have been willing participants. Modernity has extracted scientific knowledge from the world in a ruthless manner. In the end, though, and in spite of everything, the “slave” has revealed something to the “master” (modernity) that shows its premise for considering itself the master is entirely false. That something is “scientific materialism”/physicalism, which indicates that we humans and our minds are made of exactly the same stuff as the rest of the cosmos – a great inseparable, interconnected web of interacting particles (whatever those particles may actually be) following the laws of physics – and are therefore not any more special than anything else. This is because, at its heart, science is about observing the universe and letting it tell you what it actually is… if you decide to pursue its secrets. It is a search for truth. Now it may indeed be the case that having too deep a knowledge of how the universe actually works is a really bad thing for us humans (“Nature’s secrets should have remained secrets”). But now that we are in a position of knowing a lot of these secrets and can’t magically disappear them, the key overriding message that we modernity-embedded humans can, and have to, take away from scientific materialism/science is that we are not superior, and that our brain’s capacity to fathom the workings of the cosmos is extremely limited due to the latter’s sheer complexity. There is “deep wisdom” in things like “ecosystems” that we should be happily and gratefully deferring to. Awareness of these facts needs to become second nature so that we can effectively counter our strong urge to use scientific knowledge in such destructive ways.
    By all means, rant against “modern science”, so long as you define this as “science carried out in the name of modernity”. But the term “modern science” is also used to describe the point we have reached in terms of our understanding of reality (via observation) at the current time: the most up-to-date science (scientific materialism). One can actually be both anti-“modern science” and pro-“modern science” at the same time because of this dual meaning…
    But what would I know. Maybe stigmatising science altogether and getting people to forget all about our scientific knowledge will ultimately work to get people “back in touch with Nature”. I just gravely fear that the whole cycle will eventually repeat itself (if there is anything left) with this approach, and that the key positive message of scientific materialism will be lost. It’s a mad world we currently live in and I just wish so, so hard that we humans could get a grip so as to stop plundering this beautiful Earth 🙁

    • @Bim

      Yes, I second that. Modern science, or more precisely, the science that modernity brought to us, ought to be scorned for its monumental and still growing hubris and also cherished for bringing us to the understanding of its limits to untangle ecological complexity. But just there imagination seems to stop.

      We can postulate that there are non-computable problems, n-p hard problems, and wicked problems. Each acknowledges a dead-end beyond which no amount of epistemic trickery can produce viable results. We also have Gödel's diagonalization method to show how no amount of symbolic proof can work consistently beyond a certain limit. Recently, we also have the Yoneda lemma through category theory that shows comprehensively how any system's inner workings is completely determined by its relationships to all other interacting systems. Hence, the more complex those interactions, the more inscrutable the system itself becomes. So why is it so hard then to postulate a class of problems in a similar vein that are, say, *eco-hard* ?

      If we heed Ashby's humility, I think we are well advised to educate ourselves about true cybernetics, sorely missed in school curriculums. Not this GAI nonsense, but the science of navigating science and complex phenomena. He writes: "Cybernetic methods may be decisive in the treatment of certain difficult problems not by a direct winning of the solution but by a demonstration that the problem is wrongly conceived, or based on an erroneous assumption" (Ashby 1961, An introduction to cybernetics).

Comments are closed.