John Morgan

I want this text to challenge me and I assume that's what everybody is doing here. And so what is our stance, our orientation towards it such that we can be appropriate to it, we can really listen to it very deeply?

I want this text to challenge me and I assume that's what everybody is doing here. And so what is our stance, our orientation towards it such that we can be appropriate to it, we can really listen to it very deeply?

I think that's helpful. But what I'm saying is, think about what we're saying here. Imagine going into a room of physicists and saying ultimate reality is love, light, logos, life, right? They're going to look at you and they'll either, well, that's very nice. It's a platitude and they don't really believe it. But they act it out in their life. But that's the point I want to make.

I think that's helpful. But what I'm saying is, think about what we're saying here. Imagine going into a room of physicists and saying ultimate reality is love, light, logos, life, right? They're going to look at you and they'll either, well, that's very nice. It's a platitude and they don't really believe it. But they act it out in their life. But that's the point I want to make.

But these things are not out there metaphors. You can't do science without these principles of intelligibility. And so I'm trying to wake us back up to... John's not making a scientific claim. I'm not saying that. That's ridiculous. But he's not saying something that's irrelevant to the scientific world.

But these things are not out there metaphors. You can't do science without these principles of intelligibility. And so I'm trying to wake us back up to... John's not making a scientific claim. I'm not saying that. That's ridiculous. But he's not saying something that's irrelevant to the scientific world.

Yes. Thanks, James. Exactly. And also, this can be easily trivialized. That's my concern here. Oh, yes, that's very nice. Yeah, light of love. Oh, we like love. Right? And, you know, this, like, imagine, imagine proposing that relationality is that from which things emerge rather than things are that from which relations emerge.

Yes. Thanks, James. Exactly. And also, this can be easily trivialized. That's my concern here. Oh, yes, that's very nice. Yeah, light of love. Oh, we like love. Right? And, you know, this, like, imagine, imagine proposing that relationality is that from which things emerge rather than things are that from which relations emerge.

I just came from such a conference around Imelda Gurkir's work, and there was a physicist there, and what the science is, at the bottom, you're getting pure relationality, And at the top, with relativity, you have pre-relationality. And then the scientists are driven by this thing that they can't justify scientifically. But somehow the two theories have to be integrated. They have to be one.

I just came from such a conference around Imelda Gurkir's work, and there was a physicist there, and what the science is, at the bottom, you're getting pure relationality, And at the top, with relativity, you have pre-relationality. And then the scientists are driven by this thing that they can't justify scientifically. But somehow the two theories have to be integrated. They have to be one.

And they've been struggling with this for like 50 years. I think part of the problem is they're still bound in a kind of substance metaphysics, even though they're wrestling with more of a neoplatonic theory. understanding of reality. Go ahead.

And they've been struggling with this for like 50 years. I think part of the problem is they're still bound in a kind of substance metaphysics, even though they're wrestling with more of a neoplatonic theory. understanding of reality. Go ahead.

Yeah, well, that's what I wanted to say. I mean, I'm not making any trespass on the doctrine of the incarnation. But what I was trying to say, look, these things are incarnated in us. They are not just things we're referring to out in the world. They're a body. We understand that we live... Like it's almost like what Paul says in Acts. In these we live and move and have our being.

Yeah, well, that's what I wanted to say. I mean, I'm not making any trespass on the doctrine of the incarnation. But what I was trying to say, look, these things are incarnated in us. They are not just things we're referring to out in the world. They're a body. We understand that we live... Like it's almost like what Paul says in Acts. In these we live and move and have our being.

We are participating in them.

We are participating in them.

Again, this is a cutting edge scientific idea. The idea that there's a deep continuity between how life works and how mind works and we can talk about whatever spirit is. This is what people are now talking about. They're taking it seriously. Right.

Again, this is a cutting edge scientific idea. The idea that there's a deep continuity between how life works and how mind works and we can talk about whatever spirit is. This is what people are now talking about. They're taking it seriously. Right.

And they should, because we've hit this wall in our ontology in which science is making a picture of everything except the scientist, the living scientist who does science. That person doesn't fit in that ontology. That's a hole. Right. And we have to invert our epistemology and our ontology so that we can be proper places. We can find a proper home within that again. And I'm trying to

And they should, because we've hit this wall in our ontology in which science is making a picture of everything except the scientist, the living scientist who does science. That person doesn't fit in that ontology. That's a hole. Right. And we have to invert our epistemology and our ontology so that we can be proper places. We can find a proper home within that again. And I'm trying to