Hello and welcome to rewilding philosophy, your newsletter about ekophilosophical health for our times or in other words: life advice, but with values.
Your questions remind me of Jeffrey Kripal’s ‘How to Think Impossibly’.
He describes a ‘flip’ occurring among some academics in the humanities and sciences. In simplistic terms it’s a flip in worldview from one where consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain to one where consciousness is primary.
If consciousness is recognised as primary then it’s probably impossible for our thoughts to only impact ourselves. Using writing as a means to clarify and focus our thoughts then might be one way to maximise the impact of our thoughts - “impact to action”.
So for me, writing has impact because, as you say, I’ve “turned impact upside down”, and also because I’ve ‘flipped’. 🙂
Thanks for sharing. I love the idea of connecting the impact of writing to consciousness as primary and how the understanding of impact changes resulting from that.
I have read the flip and found it very inspiring. I am also an avid reader of Bernado Kastrup and also found Amit Goswami writing on this super interesting. If you have any other reading recommendations on this, I'd love to hear.
Jeffrey Kripal also wrote this re the most remarkable truly wild Crazy Wisdom Philosopher and Artist who has ever appeared on this planet and the Cosmos altogether.
As a writer, I love your writing, am nourished by it, and integrate it by osmosis. However, I find your perspective here on writing to be rather self-limiting b/c self-centered (which Didion clearly was, of course). From my own perspective - and I have over a 1000 followers on Academia.edu (top 3%) - I have never seen the ideas I express in my writing as coming from me. They've always seemed to come through me, in recent years particularly from Gaia. It's from opening myself up to outer influence and larger agency that my thoughts and words take shape. This saves me the worry of "impact," as you say, since to me the more fruitful focus is on synchronicity. I began my writing career as a Transcendentalist, so Emerson expressed this process as channeling the Oversoul, which Mark Skelding has more recently re-branded in a non-anthropocentric way as Gaia's psychosphere. I offer this not by way of persuasion, as every writer is unique and whatever you are doing is working from my assessment of your brilliant writing. Rather, just raising the spectre of "self" as a symptom of the objectifying influence of the dominant scientific-materialist worldview, which I think you would agree is what has given rise to our existential crisis. Cheers!
Wow. Thanks so much for these thoughts Tham (and for the kind words which really mean so much). I love how you are thinking about this and it's giving me a lot of food for thought. I have been practicing tuning into this synchronicity for a while and somehow lost track of it. Though I notice that certain practices that for me connect me to "the oversoul" or Gaia have an impact on my writing. Do you have any reading suggestions on Mark Skelding's work?
Feels wholly right to write stuff that may, even if only by chance, inspire people towards positive change. To improve on chance (desirable, considering our current deluge of available information) I envisage a system for helping writings find the right people and people finding the right writings. I wrote about that earlier this year, here: https://wiki.simongrant.org/doku.php/ch:words
Rather than too quickly accepting the dichotomy you propose at the end, I'm suggesting seeing this quandary in a wider frame, and in particular as seeing it as part of the wider challenge of how to find and connect with the other people who may share the ideas; may benefit from the ideas; may contribute to the ideas; or even, just maybe, collaborate in bringing stronger collective insight to a wider audience.
Your questions remind me of Jeffrey Kripal’s ‘How to Think Impossibly’.
He describes a ‘flip’ occurring among some academics in the humanities and sciences. In simplistic terms it’s a flip in worldview from one where consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain to one where consciousness is primary.
If consciousness is recognised as primary then it’s probably impossible for our thoughts to only impact ourselves. Using writing as a means to clarify and focus our thoughts then might be one way to maximise the impact of our thoughts - “impact to action”.
So for me, writing has impact because, as you say, I’ve “turned impact upside down”, and also because I’ve ‘flipped’. 🙂
https://www.amazon.com/How-Think-Impossibly-Belief-Everything/dp/0226833682/
Thanks for sharing. I love the idea of connecting the impact of writing to consciousness as primary and how the understanding of impact changes resulting from that.
I have read the flip and found it very inspiring. I am also an avid reader of Bernado Kastrup and also found Amit Goswami writing on this super interesting. If you have any other reading recommendations on this, I'd love to hear.
Jeffrey Kripal also wrote this re the most remarkable truly wild Crazy Wisdom Philosopher and Artist who has ever appeared on this planet and the Cosmos altogether.
http://www.kneeoflistening.com/foreward
This page describes his Illuminated Condition at birth
http://www.kneeoflistening.com/chapter-one/6
As a writer, I love your writing, am nourished by it, and integrate it by osmosis. However, I find your perspective here on writing to be rather self-limiting b/c self-centered (which Didion clearly was, of course). From my own perspective - and I have over a 1000 followers on Academia.edu (top 3%) - I have never seen the ideas I express in my writing as coming from me. They've always seemed to come through me, in recent years particularly from Gaia. It's from opening myself up to outer influence and larger agency that my thoughts and words take shape. This saves me the worry of "impact," as you say, since to me the more fruitful focus is on synchronicity. I began my writing career as a Transcendentalist, so Emerson expressed this process as channeling the Oversoul, which Mark Skelding has more recently re-branded in a non-anthropocentric way as Gaia's psychosphere. I offer this not by way of persuasion, as every writer is unique and whatever you are doing is working from my assessment of your brilliant writing. Rather, just raising the spectre of "self" as a symptom of the objectifying influence of the dominant scientific-materialist worldview, which I think you would agree is what has given rise to our existential crisis. Cheers!
Also, how can I find your writing on academia - my google search didn't lead me to it :)
Try "Zhiwa Woodbury" on Academia.edu and at PanpsychologyNow!
Wow. Thanks so much for these thoughts Tham (and for the kind words which really mean so much). I love how you are thinking about this and it's giving me a lot of food for thought. I have been practicing tuning into this synchronicity for a while and somehow lost track of it. Though I notice that certain practices that for me connect me to "the oversoul" or Gaia have an impact on my writing. Do you have any reading suggestions on Mark Skelding's work?
https://westernsydney.academia.edu/MarkSkelding
Feels wholly right to write stuff that may, even if only by chance, inspire people towards positive change. To improve on chance (desirable, considering our current deluge of available information) I envisage a system for helping writings find the right people and people finding the right writings. I wrote about that earlier this year, here: https://wiki.simongrant.org/doku.php/ch:words
Rather than too quickly accepting the dichotomy you propose at the end, I'm suggesting seeing this quandary in a wider frame, and in particular as seeing it as part of the wider challenge of how to find and connect with the other people who may share the ideas; may benefit from the ideas; may contribute to the ideas; or even, just maybe, collaborate in bringing stronger collective insight to a wider audience.
Also, really enjoyed your wiki entry on this.
Very good point. Thank you 🙏