I’d rate this a ‘must watch’ interview.

I do think it'd be worthwhile if we could get a specific example of the Oneness and who is saying it. I assume the objection to Oneness is that the personal self is an illusion, and is ultimately consigned to Oblivion?

Is it McGilchrist who espouses this? I've certainly never heard him say it?

Is it Curt? I know he's interviewed Bernardo, maybe some other Idealists...I don't know Curt's actual position on these things so maybe he is in favor of Oneness in the above sense.

Is it McGilchrist who espouses this? I've certainly never heard him say it?

 

As is so often the case, people appear fixated on this one ‘Oneness’ point, McGilchrist’s video is about SO much more. It frustrates me to find myself arguing with some of my pals about this. I know you’re not keen on bad language either, so I’m sorry if it bugs you, but I must get it out.

This is just an attempt to wind me up, and Berkelon would just love to see me banned.

Is this allowed? Is this respectful? Would it be reasonable to reply ‘fuck off you tosser’ to a post like this?

Always the victim.

Always the victim.

The irony is strong with this tosser.

The irony is strong with this tosser.

Weird post - no whining.

Weird post - no whining.

Wow, three posts in one day. That’s surely a record for you. 

[Laird]

Cut it out, guys, or I'll close the thread.

Re Sci's request for "a specific example of the Oneness and who is saying it", I don't think anybody's claiming anybody did say it in the video in the OP. I wrote of (emphasis added) 'other cases [in which Raimo objects to] a doctrine of annihilation of the self as it "merges with Oneness"' - i.e., cases foreign to this thread. I can only assume that Raimo's objection in this case was to the doctrine of "no self", which the video's front image advertises heavily (as in 'THE MEANING OF HAVING "NO SELF"' on a yellow background). Again, if that's false advertising, then Raimo can hardly be blamed.

Cut it out, guys, or I'll close the thread.

Re Sci's request for "a specific example of the Oneness and who is saying it", I don't think anybody's claiming anybody did say it in the video in the OP. I wrote of (emphasis added) 'other cases [in which Raimo objects to] a doctrine of annihilation of the self as it "merges with Oneness"' - i.e., cases foreign to this thread. I can only assume that Raimo's objection in this case was to the doctrine of "no self", which the video's front image advertises heavily (as in 'THE MEANING OF HAVING "NO SELF"' on a yellow background). Again, if that's false advertising, then Raimo can hardly be blamed.

Yes, assume away. 

Meanwhile no objection is made to Raimo or Berk elon. Only me when I comment on comments they both make first. 

Seems like Berk elon has a point. I am a ‘victim’ after all! 

[Laird]

It's a reasonable assumption since (1) Raimo made it clear he hadn't watched the video on principle, and (2) his objection was to "no self", which was clearly advertised in the video's front image. He's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

No objection needed to be made to Raimo, and re objections to berkelon, you might have noticed that I wrote "guys", as in, plural, as in, both of you. I was not here when the exchange of insults began so had no opportunity to say anything until partway through.