Rough Notes on Sheldrake’s “Trinity”

Mentioned Sheldrake’s “trinity” in passing at HTLGI last week. He did actually name the three, but I failed to capture … and I’m digging for earlier references.

“Is the Sun Conscious” is the same angle he used last week. Talk part-way down this page from 2015 – as a Christian theist / lay preacher he does of course use Trinitarian concepts in the Christian religious sense in other talks too – looking for the specific formulation he intended here. (When it comes to dualism vs monism – same joke – prefer 3 to 2 or 1. But no detail again. My own metaphysics is “3-aspect” monism. Even a dual-aspect monism can be seen as a trinity? I really don’t care what we call it, all that matters is how it works.)

Pan-psychist turn from materialist philosophers and neuro-scientists in the last decade. Strawson, Nagel & Koch notably … Whitehead was the most interesting early example – philosophy of organism “Science and the Modern World VI” (1925) self-organising systems with their own goals and purposes (unlike “machines”) -> process reality (1927/28) … see also Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes unexpected but promising. (And lots more from him on Panpsychism – as well as “popular” Kastrup and Goff.)

Future, conscious “possibility” vs past / “existing” bodily reality distinction. (This will prove a good first bifurcation – consciousness being about modelling and evaluating “possibility” is a strong thread of mine too – counterfactuals vs factuals etc).

As an atheist I struggle with his personal-being “god” talk, but no matter, lots of his speculations (like Newton’s) are interesting. (And I’m not atheist for bloody-minded reasons – my metaphysics just doesn’t see the need for any intentional “supernatural” agent – beyond those evolved in nature, with powers to go beyond the natural laws of nature. (Happy to use the word god in a Spinozan pantheist way – but not as a causal entity to “believe in”. Though as Rabbi Sacks pointed out any set of values we agree on collectively – eg UN Human Rights et al – is a religion by any other name. That which binds us as humans. No problem with that kind of religion, either – what we hold sacred / sacred-naturalism / natural-theology – just not a supernatural agent of a god.)

Electromagnetic patterns of activity – Hmmm? Don’t buy this physical mechanism. Cosmic objects … earth – moon – star – galaxy – universe. His caricature of the problems with science of cosmology entertaining as ever. Fred Hoyle’s “Black Cloud” as a parable.

Some variation on:

The Word <> The Spirit <> The Mind (of God)

But that’s not how he put it …. damn!

2 thoughts on “Rough Notes on Sheldrake’s “Trinity””

  1. Interesting topic, as a spin-off; there might be a short way from the recent trend of talking about “emergent agencies” as scientific realities, to aggregating upwards and bridging into theology. If a group is/has an “active agent”, a neighborhood the same, a city, a nation, the human species.. at some point the overall agency of everything/being is very close to the ancient idea of the Divine. Though not defined as “self-conscious” or “self-aware”, but it becomes close to a semantic difference.

  2. Yes. Again, this is the point of the systems-thinking / markov-blankets story of emergence. These naturally strongly emergent things (systems) have their own identity, agency & causation that can influence any other “system” in the whole – sub or super, up or down. Self-conscious / self-awareness is one property that emerges in higher / complex systems but basic sentience – awareness and response behaviour – occurs in any organic system.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Psybertron Asks

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading