I'm Interviewing Peter Ralston - Gathering Questions

[bazera]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I had a long discussion of this on the other forum.  What I concluded is that account of direct experience is an assumed philosophy.  In other words, when we reduce experience to "direct experience", we're leaving something out.  It's very sneaky because we assume that we can think of inputs to our consciousnesses like sound, smell, taste, touch, sight, thought, emotion, and those form the "atoms of direct experience."  Without offending anyone, I don't buy that theory of direct experience, I think it's a reductionism.  It's useful, but often the conclusions drawn from it I think leave something out.  Morality is not just about feeling, it's a perception or a knowing: an experience, but not a direct experience in that reductionism sense.  When we say morality is just or just is a feeling or emotion (not saying anyone here is saying this), that attempt to get at the phenomenological essence chops off part of it.  This is why philosophers like Hume developed the is-ought dichotomy thus relegating morality to something different from what is.  You're not going to find an ought in an is or from an is.  I disagree with that!  But you can see how that Empiricist account of direct experience tends to exclude morality from what is.  Therefore, Hume had a boo! hooray! account of morality.  No booing or hooraying (and thus morality in general) has anything to do with what is for Hume in his Empiricist account of direct experience.

Do you mean something akin to what Ken Wilber would call structures (egocentric, ethnocentric, worldcentric, integral)?

You do not perceive structures as objects. They appear as patterns in how experience is organized: what you notice, what you ignore, what feels meaningful, what explanations your mind generates. But it isn't found in senses. They show up as automatic interpretations, conceptual frameworks, sense of identity, how complex your understanding of situations is.

Do you percieve morality the same way?

They have certain reality but are those ultimately true? Like, in all circumstances?

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-03-05 at 6:07 AM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Yep! Language can be used to reverse engineer itself and deconstruct - but at the same time we have to use the language to deconstruct! Like a hammer trying to hammer itself into shape  No escape!

The interview was really good - Ralston couldn't get to all questions - and it is just the way it is with free-flow conversations like that. 

Overall I felt Ralston's age, actually - he is less clear and a bit more rambly as time goes on (compared to his earlier videos and talks). His books and writing are much clearer and concrete. I would suppose his workshops are also of a higher calibre with a powerful grounding and integration focus. He sometimes stumbles around and fails to make clear points, and he is losing track of his train of thought occasionally.

I remain happy to have been on this earth while he is still around!

Cannot wait for his next book  

Yea it’s a tricky thing. 

[CARDOZZO]

New Book - 3 days (Release 03/13)

https://a.co/d/08Y35EDs 

[bazera]

33 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

New Book - 3 days (Release 03/13)

https://a.co/d/08Y35EDs 

Thanks, just ordered it.

Can't wait to read it.

[CARDOZZO]

1 hour ago, bazera said:

Thanks, just ordered it.

Can't wait to read it.

God Consciousness before GTA VI 

Edited Tuesday at 02:24 PM by CARDOZZO

[bazera]

21 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

God Consciousness before GTA VI 

Ralston realizing Absolute Love before GTA VI

I wonder if that's included in his recent deeper realizations. He doesn't mention it in any of the other books.

[CARDOZZO]

14 minutes ago, bazera said:

Ralston realizing Absolute Love before GTA VI

I wonder if that's included in his recent deeper realizations. He doesn't mention it in any of the other books.

Nah, he is not into hippie shit 

[CARDOZZO]

Quote

Using his unique approach, once again, Peter Ralston tackles an unprecedented and inconceivable depth of consciousness. Properly understood, this book could transform and enlighten the worlds of psychology, spirituality, personal growth, philosophy, science, Buddhism, and every other attempt at grasping the truth. The goal of this book is no less than having you attain a profound consciousness of the absolute nature of existence beyond the limits of self and the accumulated conclusions of human history.

This book should not be your first encounter with Ralston's work, it is far too advanced. It is best to start with the trilogy: The Book of Not Knowing, Pursuing Consciousness, and The Genius of Being before tackling this one.

In a progression of illuminating assertions, Ralston shows us that the self is not some ethereal "object" within as is widely accepted and persists despite the failure of exhaustive investigations to locate this inner-self. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. It turns out our entire reality is beyond any self. Grasping this demands an unprecedented depth of consciousness, but it also leads to unprecedent levels of joy and freedom.