That was very interesting -- thanks very much for it.
If I get Tim aright, the nub of his problem is that he can't put consciousness first because it would imply that there's always been an omniscient something that in a sense has purposely been forgetting itself so that it can go on to explore itself and discover what it already knows.There's a kind of "self-deceptive" element in that which for him doesn't seem to make any sense. He's saying that no, it isn't like that: the venture of the universe isn't a trick, it's the story of (for want of a better word) a being full of potential that is actually discovering itself in myriads of ways, one of which is you and another me, also snails, coffee cups and atoms.
That doesn't imply he's a panpsychist, i.e. thinks that everything possesses a moiety of consciousness which through complexification comes to possess our level of consciousness and then progresses beyond that to yet higher levels of consciousness. The problem is that word "consciousness"; the prime being hasn't always been conscious at the very highest possible level (well above ours) and we aren't all striving to get back to that level (which is a strain of thought that has long existed -- the "return to Source" motif of a number of spiritual traditions). Rather, it's more that this being has lots of (infinite?) potential to evolve, and we're all involved in that process. It is continually instantiating itself in forms that may sometimes be well behind the leading edge of its self-discovery because -- you never know -- those forms may turn out to have the potential to advance the leading edge.
So the prime being is continually discovering more and more of its own potential, which includes consciousness at our level and perhaps some way further, as found in the minds of the most spiritually advanced people. But the prime being isn't at any time more advanced in a spiritual sense than such people (or possibly -- if there are other life forms in the universe -- than the most advanced non-human spiritual beings anywhere).
I think I may be beginning to see why he uses that word "emergence". It's a bit of a dirty word in some contexts, for example when used by materialists in a hand-waving way to explain all sorts of things about which they have no clue how they came to be. But in the sense he uses it, I think I may be appreciating better where he's coming from.
Again, if I'm beginning to understand him better, this doesn't negate everything that is within the philosophy of Idealism. In fact, to a certain extent, it's compatible with much of it, but like he says, it's often a question of language. In different contexts, one may use the same words to describe things and it's easy to get lost in the semantics.
Whatever, thanks again for posting the video: it's given me a lot to think about. Tell me, do you think I'm on the right kind of track here?
I still haven't listened to the show so could be talking rubbish, but it sounds like Freke is outlining a kind of Panentheism, which is heavily influenced by Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy and philosophy of organism.
With this is mind I reckon Freke is using the term emergent in the sense that higher systems of organisation have emergent properties and behaviours that cannot be explained or predicted by the study of their constituent parts. These higher systems of order exert a top-down causal effect on their constituent parts. The cosmos is also seen a vast nested hierarchy of emergent (in the previously defined sense) systems, with each emergent system having a top-down causal effect on all lower systems in the hierarchy. So, the ultimate organising system is sometimes seen as being a contender for God.
Panentheism also tries to philosophically collapse dualism by viewing both mind and matter as expressions (or abstractions) of a single ontological reality / existence, or, more infrequently, as ontologically different expressions of an ontologically singular sub-strata.
As panentheism is usually tied in with Whitehead it also holds the dynamic and evolutionary nature of being as necessarily fundamental to any philosophical system that seeks to outline the nature of existence.
So, I suppose, taken the above, the extended consciousness realm and the material would, to some degree, evolve in a intertwined fashion (maybe with bi-directional influence).
One outgrowth of panentheism and Process philosophy is Process theology. In Process theology the world is seen as being contained in God, with God's defining, and unchanging, characteristics being creativity, evolution, etc. As the world changes, so too must an aspect of God. However, the previously mentioned Platonic characteristics are unchanging and exert a top-down causal effect on all of existence (making God's power not coercively omnipotent in the usual sense but magnetically attractive).
Whitehead summed it up as follows:
It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent.
It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many.
It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently.
It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.
It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World transcends God.
It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.
THIS SHOW AND FORUM ARE TERRIBLE! I've got stuff to do, but Skeptiko sucks up such a tremendous amount of my headspace. :)