https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=Li-al82lHG8
to go back to evolution, do you, you know, because I have explained that panpsychists, at least like Bergson, can give an idea of why consciousness would evolve. And on your side, how do you, do you try to explain it? And if you do, you know, do you go along broadly Petersonian lines, I guess, or just… I don’t, no, I don’t, I don’t, like, I don’t mind Jordan’s, the way that he describes things. I definitely don’t care very much. I don’t think, I don’t, you know, it’s funny because I remember when I was evangelical, people would, you know, they always want to know if you’re a creationist, you’re a creationist. And, you know, when I was a teenager, I actually was a creationist for a little while, just because everybody around me was a creationist. And then when I started to understand evolutionary theory and started to understand those ideas, I thought, well, these aren’t silly. Like, there’s some interesting things in there. And then I started to pay attention and found it interesting. And then when I mostly discovered a non-scientific vision of the world, a symbolic vision of the world, then it started not to matter to me. And so people would ask me, you know, do you believe in evolution? And my answer is always, I don’t believe in evolution. I think it happened, but I don’t believe in it. Like, I don’t think about it. I don’t trust it. I don’t put my trust in evolution. It doesn’t bother me that things mechanically happen that way, but I definitely don’t, it doesn’t seem to me like that’s the best structure to know how we should live today and how we should be together and how we should live in communion. I think the phenomenological approach to the way we experience the world, to phenomena, I think is far more useful in order to describe how we actually exist in the world. And I also think that the religious structures and the religious symbolic structures are far more useful to help us understand the purpose of existence. And so because of that, you know, until today, I usually don’t. And then so when I heard Jordan talk about evolution the way he talked about it, I thought it was interesting because I thought, oh, it’s interesting because he’s able to talk about it in a manner which takes into, let’s say, takes into. OK, so this is, I guess, this is a way, I think I mentioned this before in one of the Q&A’s is that the interesting thing that’s happening, which I do find interesting, is that as, let’s say, science has taken over the entire, let’s say has taken over the entire field of perception, let’s say, in the new atheist types where it’s like science is everything, scientific knowledge is everything. And then we even have, you know, now like this whole science of consciousness and all of that. And that’s what Jordan uses often to describe some of the things he’s describing. Then what happens is they’re no longer they can no longer pretend like they’re an absolute opposition to religious thinking because, you know, the whole Enlightenment was done in opposition, was done in like we’re going to get rid of this dark, horrible thing that’s religion and we’re going to replace it with reason and with science and with all this. And so that kind of march of progress and that march of thinking, now it’s over. It’s like, OK, so now you can’t, you’ve taken over the entire field. And so now you actually now have to explain religion. It has to fit in your model or else if it doesn’t fit in your model, there’s something missing. There’s something missing in your model. You’ve opposed it to build your to put your model in front. But now you have to to to include you have to include that which you fought if you want your model to be all encompassing. And in doing that, where that’s where we’re seeing this strange flip where all of a sudden it’s like, oh, wait a minute. Things are now flipping back where we’re realizing the supremacy of consciousness and the the inevitability of hierarchies of meaning. All these things are now appearing even in the eyes of the scientists. John Ravichy is, of course, a perfect example of that. And so it’s an interest to me that I find very interesting. So that’s one of the reasons why I pay attention to this to this whole thing that’s going on with with Jordan and with John Ravichy and and with other and the discussion with other people who are talking. And what’s the name of the other guy there? The consciousness guy. Forget his name again. We talked about him quite so many times. Oh, right. Yes, Don Hoffman. There you go. That guy. So that’s what I find. That’s definitely something that I find very interesting. And I think it’s that it’s really that which has made me all of a sudden pay attention to to science more because, you know, because because I think that there’s an interesting thing happening right now. And it’s worth paying attention to and it’s worth speaking into it. And I think that if you notice the way that I. Speak, I think that I’ve adjusted the way that I speak to people and I’ve adjusted the way that I give my talks some not always, but sometimes I’ve adjusted them to talk to those people, to talk to the people who are kind of realizing this shift that’s going on right now and this kind of this flip. And so to be able to speak into it in a manner that they’ll understand all those talk that I did, you know, like sacred art in secular terms and sacred space in secular terms is pretty much addressed to those people, addressed to those people who are suddenly realizing that you no longer can avoid hierarchies of meaning and you can’t avoid, you know, consciousness as. At least the question to be answered, you know, to be talked to, to be to be discussed, you know. So, so, yeah, so, so, so I think, so I think that that’s, that’s, that’s an interesting aspect of, of science that I, that I care about, let’s say. That’s the only reason why I could, I could care about evolution.