August 20, 2023 • 51 mins
Ever wondered how mysticism, quantum theory, and consciousness are intertwined? Well, get ready to unlock some mind-bending insights with our special guest, David Lorimer. An acclaimed writer, poet, and spiritual activist, David takes us on a journey through his unique upbringing and career, deeply influenced by his grandfather, Sir Robert Lorimer, a renowned architect and mystic.
We dive into a profound exploration of consciousness and its crucial role in science. Bouncing off the theories of iconic physicists from the 1930s to modern thought-leaders, we explore the paradoxical interface of the brain and consciousness. Prepare to be fascinated by our deep dive into the Hindu concept of the 'witness', and the intricate relationships between the soul, spirit, and body. A stimulating debate on love, freedom, personal responsibility, and the concept of an afterlife awaits you!
In our final act, we present David's work under the microscope, celebrating his commitment to pushing boundaries and exploring new territories. From the impact of the exchange of ideas and knowledge to the profound influence of Reverend Norman Coburn on David's life, we cover it all. So, are you ready to challenge your world view, disrupt your thought patterns, and embark on an intellectual rollercoaster ride with us? Join in for an episode that’s sure to inspire and provoke your thoughts in equal measure.
If you liked this podcast
- please tell your friends about it,
- subscribe to this podcast wherever you listen to podcasts and/or write a brief note on apple podcasts,
- check out my blogs on Psychology Today at
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/contributors/thomas-r-verny-md
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
future.
So good morning or goodafternoon to you, david.
This is Pushing Boundaries, apodcast about pioneering
research, breakthroughdiscoveries and unconventional
ideas.
I'm your host, dr ThomasArvione.
My guest today is David Larimer, ma, pgce, frsa you will have
(00:25):
to explain to me what thosethings stand for is a writer,
lecturer, poet, editor andspiritual activist who is a
founder of Character EducationScotland.
He's former president of theWrecking Trust and the
Svedenborg Society program.
Director of the Scientific andMedical Network, chair of the
(00:49):
Galileo Commission Since 1986,he has been editor of Paradigm
Explorer, expanding horizons atthe interface between science,
consciousness and spirituality.
He was the instigator of theBeyond the Brain conference
series in 1995, and he hascoordinated the mystics and
(01:11):
scientists conferences everyyear since the late 1980s.
He's also author and editor ofa dozen books, including A New
Renaissance, transformingScience, spirit and Society,
science, consciousness andUltimate Reality Survival was a
(01:31):
question mark.
Thinking Beyond the Brain,whole in One, the Near-Dest
Experience and the Ethics ofInterconnectedness, and the
Beautiful Book of Poetry BetterLight, a Candle, published last
year.
David lives in I'm not quitesure how to pronounce it, but I
will give it a shot.
(01:51):
David lives in St Colombe, sirLeur's, which I believe is in
the south of France, close tothe Spanish border.
Am I right in that?
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Yes, saint Colombe.
Sir Larce, if you're using theFrench pronunciation.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
You do it so much better, thank you.
So, david, did I say anythingthat you would like to correct
or edit, or am I more or lesscorrect?
Speaker 2 (02:17):
No, absolutely.
The one thing I just note withamusement is that the Recon
Trust, it's the Recon Trustbecause it's the Recon.
Mountain, sir George Trevelyan,who was a mentor of mine.
He used to tell the story.
He was the founder president ofRecon Trust and he said an
(02:42):
American friend used to say well, george, how's your wrecking
trust?
Speaker 1 (02:48):
The wrecking trust.
So you don't pronounce the W.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
No, exactly it's Recon, it's Recon Trust.
But you wouldn't know thatunless you knew about the Recon
Mountain and the Recon area.
But it was just amusing,because in some ways it was a
wrecking trust.
It was something, it was newand unconventional and it
(03:14):
promoted holistic ideas in the1970s.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Right?
Well, going back to Recon,let's start way back in your
life, david.
I understand that yourgrandfather was Sir Robert
Lorimer KBE.
What does KBE stand for?
Oh, that's a knight of theBritish Empire, Ah okay, and he
was a famous architect and yougrew up on his estate in
(03:40):
Gibleston in Fife and Scotland.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Yes, that's right, he bought the.
He bought this estate.
Sounds slightly grand, but hebought the place in 1916, during
the First World War.
He had originally intended todesign his own house, but that
became impractical during theFirst World War, and then
afterwards he became one of thechief architects of the Imperial
(04:08):
War Grace Commission.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
So the reason I raised this is because I
understand that in some familypapers you found a phrase which
is the sense of another andgreater world which surrounds us
, which, though unknown to you,you have written has been a
central theme of your own work.
(04:32):
Can you tell me more about thatplease?
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Yes, so my grandfather.
I suppose I haven't thought ofit exactly like this, but I
suppose he was a mystic, in thathe had a very strong sense for
nature and his architecture andhis furniture indeed, because
I'm sitting at a desk that hedesigned and on a chair that he
(04:56):
also designed.
He used to get his guests up tolisten to the dawn chorus in May
and June if people came to stayfor the weekend, and that's
very early that's about 4.30 inthe morning, so you really have
to go back to bed if you'regoing to get enough sleep.
So I think he was really athome in nature and I think
(05:25):
probably Gibleston was sort ofretreat for him, although in
fact it's only two miles fromKelly Castle, where he was
brought up and where his father,james Lorimer, restored the
castle and the garden, and so hewas very familiar with the area
.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
So was that about the same time that the Spanish
architect who is so famous withall his kind of nature-like
buildings, like there inBarcelona, is it Gaudi, gaudi,
yes.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Yes, that's an interesting question, because my
grandfather's really atraditionalist and as was his
brother, the artist John.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Henry.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Lorimer, so a traditionalist in the best sense
of trying to maintain thecontinuity and particularly an
emphasis on crafts and craftsmen.
So he was part of the arts andcrafts movement and he had a lot
of craftsmen working with himand in fact one of the
(06:38):
biographies of him is calledLorimer and the Edinburgh
craftsmen.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
So did your father then in some way followed his
example?
What did your father's career?
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Well, initially, yes, because he in fact read
architecture at Cambridge.
But his father was quite anauthoritative figure and he
didn't think he was doing enoughwork, and so he really found
him a job which involvedeventually him going out to
(07:13):
Burma, and so he was, as it were, taken away from Cambridge and
stuck, stuck in to do some hardwork.
So that's what happened.
This was the 1920s, and then hewent to Burma in 1926 and then
(07:33):
the Japanese invasion happenedin 1942.
And so he walked out.
He didn't get caught up in theJapanese prisoners, but he and
he had.
What the other interestingthing about that was that he had
a huge collection of Burmeseweights, which were birds,
mainly birds of different sizes.
(07:55):
His father, when he went toBurma, his father said to him
Christopher, you should collectsomething.
And so when he arrived in Burma, he found that this was a quite
an inexpensive item to collect,and so I think he had about 100
of these weights in the end,and most of them are in the
(08:16):
Gulbenkian Museum at DurhamUniversity and then a small
number are in the OrientalDepartment at Cambridge as well,
as he was at Cambridge.
As I was saying in the 1920s.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
So then you yourself started as a banker.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (08:37):
I did yes, and my father thought that was a very
good thing because he was reallya businessman himself.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
So what made you switch from banking into a whole
other area?
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Well, I think you know at that age, unless you're
someone, like maybe yourself,who had a vocation for medicine,
in an early age, you're stilltrying to find out who you are
and what best, what activity?
you're best to pursue.
And so I went into I did partlyread economics at St Andrews,
(09:18):
and so I was kind of preparedfor going into banking in that
sense.
And then I found that really itwasn't didn't suit me at all,
and a key moment was when I wentto visit a flatmate who was
teaching at Charterhouse Schooland I thought to myself well,
(09:39):
this is much more the kind ofway of life that I'd like to be
able to lead and, you know, getbe involved in education.
And so after about 18 months Istarted to make some plans and I
then got into Cambridge to dothe education course which is
(10:02):
the PGCE element.
Oh, that's the PGCE, the letterspostgraduate certificate of
education, but I got in for theyear afterwards because I wanted
to spend a year abroad.
And this year abroad wasabsolutely critical part of
everything that's happened to besince because I took, I
(10:24):
recorded all my favorite musicand put it onto cassette tapes
as one used in those days, andthen I took four boxes of books
and I read all of those bookswhile I was on.
That.
Van der Jaar, as the Germanswould say, yes, yes, and that
(10:45):
really set the tone for myapproach, my interdisciplinary,
my interest in large number ofdifferent fields.
So it was really a criticalyear and a critical decision to
make.
And I spent part of the year inGermany and then part of it in
(11:06):
France, and as I'd alreadyworked at the Champagne House,
moëté Chandon, they were kindenough to invite me back in
September 1976.
And in fact, when I receivedthe letter saying that there was
a space for me, I resigned fromthe bank the next day, because
(11:29):
it was just a sign for me,because, as it happened, someone
else had canceled being able togo, and so it was your job.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
What was your job at Moëté Chandon?
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Oh, I was showing tourists around the cellars and
so I was basically a guide and Iwould do three to five tours a
day, and the rest of the time Iwas reading the books.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
I was there and I was shown around, and that was all
about 15 years ago.
You would not have been thereby that time, right?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
No, no, no, I was there 50 years ago, okay.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Wonderful place and they explain everything to you
and how they turn the bottlesevery couple of days and all
that kind of stuff, right?
Speaker 2 (12:26):
That's right.
That's the remouage it's called, and I don't know whether they
I mean I think it's pretty muchautomatic now, but in my day it
was all done manually and theremouer would turn 60,000
bottles a day.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
Amazing.
So, going back then still toyour childhood, I understand
that one key book that you readin your 20s, when you were still
working for a bank, wasTestimony of Light by Helen
Greaves.
Can you tell us more about howthat changed your life?
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Yes, that was a very important book, and the reason
for it was that it introduced meto this idea of a blueprint
that we have.
We each have an inner blueprintto our lives, which is a sort
of thread, and when I reflectedon this I asked myself a
(13:27):
question what kind of person doI want to be when I'm 70?
And I've reached that milestone, in fact gone slightly past it
now and immediately I realizedit wasn't an ex-merchant banker,
I wanted to do something else.
I wasn't cut out really forthat, and it gave me a sense
(13:50):
that you sort of tune into theopportunities, and so in a way,
that story I just told about theletter arriving at the right
time was an example of that.
Another example was when I sawthe advert to go to apply to a
(14:13):
teacher at Winchester College,and as soon as I saw the advert
I knew I was going there.
I knew that was the next step.
And as soon as George Blaker,when I joined the Scientific and
Medical Network 40 years ago,he said you're just the kind of
person we're looking for to runthe network, I knew that was the
next step.
And so that's an example, andI'm sure some of your listeners
(14:37):
will have similar experiencesthat of knowing that something
is going to come into your life,and then you get the sense that
you're on track.
And I think that's veryimportant, because it's easy to
go off track and if we get asense intuitively that we're on
track and I'm sure this appliesto you as well it's important.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Yes, it applies to me , luckily, but it does not seem
to apply to the majority ofpeople.
Like, the majority of peoplethat I have met in my life just
seem kind of lost and hate thejob that they have and have no
(15:22):
idea what they would really liketo do, except that they would
like to leave their jobs.
So what happened to thosepeople?
How come they don't have ablueprint?
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Well, they probably do, because the thing is to ask
yourself a question and tuneinto that.
And, of course, I suppose inthe majority cases they wouldn't
have the opportunity of havingread or even come across this
book, and so the whole ideawould be foreign.
But I mean, I think the closestyou can get to it, which does
(15:56):
apply to a lot of people, isthis sense of vocation and being
called.
And I think a lot of priests, alot of medical people and I
think they have a sense of beingcalled to do some particular
kind of work.
And I tried to foster this inyoung people through my
(16:24):
inspiring purpose program,because I was encouraging people
to look inside themselves theseare 10 to 15 year olds and ask
what sort of person they were,what do they really want to
achieve and contribute in lifeand how are they going to do
(16:44):
this?
And that involves thinkingabout yourself, thinking about
what you're suited to do andthen setting some goals about
how you're going to go aboutachieving these aspirations.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
That makes a lot of sense.
That makes a lot of sense Inthinking beyond the brain, one
of your finest books althoughthey're all fine, it's difficult
to pick one that's better thanthe others, but the one that
sort of appeals to me you wroteI regard consciousness as
fundamental Matter is derivativefrom consciousness.
(17:26):
We cannot get behindconsciousness.
Everything that we talk about,everything that we regard as
existing postulatesconsciousness.
There is no matter as such.
It exists only by virtue of aforce bringing the particle to
vibration and holding ittogether in a minute solar
(17:48):
system.
We must assume behind thisforce the existence of a
conscious and intelligent mind.
That's a lot to digest.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Well, that's Max Planck, isn't it?
It's Max.
Planck, that's not you, that'sMax Planck, no no, no, if I'd
said that, that would have beenextraordinary, and I was quoting
Max Planck, you were you areright.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
I'm sorry.
Thank you for pointing that out, but you totally believe in
that, isn't that?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
right?
Well, I think it's anextraordinary statement,
especially when you think thatit was made in 1931.
Yes, yes, At the same time hewasn't alone among the
physicists of the day.
You know Schrodinger,heisenberg, pauley they all
arrived at some version of thisof consciousness being
(18:41):
fundamental, and they wroteabout this.
James Jeans was another one.
And what I find reallyinteresting is that they were
having these thoughts, which isa reflection of where, in some
ways, you could say,consciousness studies has now
(19:02):
got to.
But they were having thesethoughts in the 1930s.
And if you look at Ken Wilbur'sbook, for instance, quantum
Questions, then he was lookingat this 25, 30 years ago and
that's the title of one of hisbooks where he's comparing
mystical writings with writings.
(19:23):
The great physicist David Bohmwould be another one.
And if you did a kind of test,is this written by a mystic or a
physicist?
Sometimes it's actually quitedifficult to know.
It's a kind of turing test forthe mind-brain issue.
So I think that's also anotherpoint to make.
(19:46):
I think is that this is a muchmore natural thought for a
physicist to have than abiologist, and because I think
biology and medicine to someextent, in the sense that it's
related to biology, is much moremechanistic in the way it
thinks of things.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
And this is Ian McGilchrist says that a left
hemisphere capture, that the wayof thinking is mechanistic and
indeed manipulative, as Ianwould say and I think physicists
that that was all blown out ofthe water by relativity and
(20:32):
quantum theory because they hadto think more widely.
And then the idea that theobserver might collapse, the
wave function, I mean this isunthinkable and sort of
equivalent in biology, even ifit's a controversial statement.
So I think it's easier forphysicists to think in this way
(20:54):
than it is for biologists.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
So of course I totally understand matter and
energy and particles.
But consciousness, like what isit?
What is consciousness?
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Well, many people have asked themselves that
question, and of course, it's aquestion that you can only, in a
way, answer reflexively, butbecause the difference between
and I was just rereading anarticle we're going to print by
David Bentley Hart in the nextissue of the journal that
(21:37):
consciousness is something thatwe have an immediate experience
of, and indeed, withoutconsciousness, we couldn't be
having this interview together,as Max Planck points out, and so
it's not like an object in theworld, which is what the rest of
science is about.
So you could take athird-person view of the brain,
(22:01):
but you can't take athird-person view of your own
consciousness.
The only way you could do thiswould be in terms of what the
Hindus would call the witness,and they're meditators, and I
include myself in that category.
I often have the experience ofwitnessing my consciousness, and
(22:27):
therefore they're not being acontent to that witnessing,
because it's a wider and deeperperception, if you like, and so
consciousness for me is my senseof awareness.
(22:49):
This is the subjective aspect ofit, but of course,
consciousness with a capital Cis a kind of topic for
philosophical discussion.
You can start giving somedefinitions if you want to go
down that route.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Right, yeah, but I'm not in any way being critical.
I'm truly trying to understandthis concept, Like it is so
abstract.
Consciousness, you and I canagree, is awareness, Like I know
who I am.
I'm conscious when I'manesthetized or when I'm
(23:24):
sleeping.
I'm not aware of who I am,although I'm still alive.
But consciousness for me nowmeans that I'm speaking with you
.
I'm sitting in this chair, Allthese kinds of things are part
of my consciousness.
But how can there be aconsciousness outside of me?
That's what I'm trying tounderstand.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Well, maybe it's an inside job, if I can put it that
way, because the kind ofoutside, inside is already a
categorization, and so I thinkthis applies to out-of-body
experiences.
Quote, unquote, because whatseems to happen is you have to.
(24:07):
By definition, you're not inthe same space, you're not in
physical space, you seem to bein a parallel space which has
enough similarity with physicalspace for you to be able to draw
some true inferences about, orhave perceptions about what's
going on.
But I think the way if you wereto talk philosophically for a
(24:32):
moment, then traditionally, ifyou go back into the history of
philosophy, you say well, what'sthe relationship between the
soul and the body, or the spiritin the body?
That was formulated, and thenyou've got the question of
what's the relationship betweenthe mind and the body, the
mind-body problem.
Quote unquote.
And then that was sharpened upby a Descartes and has been the
(24:56):
object of much discussion anddebate ever since.
And then, more recently, you'vegot the consciousness-brain
interface, thebrain-consciousness interface,
which is how we would is.
That's the issue we want toknow about now.
And so a lot of neuroscientistswould say well, there's no such
thing as the soul, it's just anoutdated category, we don't
(25:20):
need it anymore.
And some people would saythere's no such thing as the
self either.
Right, and Susan Blackmore, forinstance, they would say that.
But that's from a Buddhistperspective.
And again, there is a spectrumof possibilities here.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Right.
But going back to Max Planck,when he says I regard
consciousness as fundamental,matter is derivative from
consciousness.
I just can't unpack that.
I don't see how matter couldcome out of something that is so
abstract as consciousness.
(26:02):
Is consciousness another wordfor God?
I can't hear you, sorry, you'remuted.
Somehow you got muted.
Yeah, muted.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
Sorry, I don't know how that happened.
I think I must have hitsomething.
Yeah, yes, no, I understandexactly what you're saying there
and I think, if I think aboutit, then probably I would go
more for a dual aspect view,that there is something beyond
(26:43):
both matter and consciousnesswhich is refracted into the
inner and the outer, if you like.
But at the same time, I dothink that there is what the new
thought thinkers would say is auniversal mind or universal
consciousness, and that's calledan idealist position, isn't it
(27:05):
the idea that consciousness isprimary and the matter is
secondary or derivative from it?
There is a classic statement ofidealism and there are many
people who take that view, eventhough it's hard for other
people to find that intelligiblebecause it doesn't really.
(27:28):
You know, you can't make senseof it.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
Yeah right.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
So I suppose, if I really think about it, I would.
I'd be looking for something,for a principle you know beyond
what a plank calls consciousnessand saying that matter is
derivative from consciousness.
But Bernhard Castrat wouldprobably agree with that, and
(27:52):
maybe also Ebben Alexander,because they do take a sort of
full blown idealist view.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
So in the scientific and medical network that you are
you still involved with that?
Oh, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
No, I'm very involved .
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Okay, so let's pivot to that for a moment.
So what is that about?
What kind of work does thescientific and medical network
do?
Speaker 2 (28:23):
Well, we just we're just celebrating 50 years of
work this year.
So the network was founded in1973 by senior academics and
physicians and civil servantsenior civil servant, and the
reason that it was founded wasthat it was.
(28:44):
It was felt that scientificmaterialism didn't give an
adequate account of reality andepistemology and ways of knowing
, and that was partly becauseeach of the founders themselves
had a mystical experience or hadmultiple mystical experiences,
(29:07):
and so they knew personally atleast this was the inference
that they drew, if you're beingreally critical they knew
personally that there was moreto life and reality than was on
the surface, and it couldn't beaccounted for by a reductionist,
matter based view of the world.
(29:28):
And why this matters as well isthat it's a question of values
and it doesn't provide anadequate base for values, as I
think we were very aware now,and they were concerned that
particularly the youngscientists and medics were being
(29:51):
, as it were, indoctrinated intothis view of mechanistic
materialism that mind isunconsciousness or entirely
derived from the physical andthe brain, when, if you go back
as far as William James, he wasalready questioning this in the
1890s, and then.
(30:14):
So there are two aspects to thenetwork.
There's a, an outer facingaspect, which is our program,
and then there's an inner facingaspect, which provides a safe
space for people to haveimportant conversations and
share experiences that they'vehad, which they might not want
to share too widely, andespecially with skeptical
colleagues.
(30:35):
So our work is really atvarious interfaces of science
and consciousness, science andspirituality, science and
mysticism, science andesotericism, and and but not so
much science and theology, orscience and Christianity and so
(30:57):
well, or even science andphilosophy you could say you
know would be another interfaceand so we're really interested
in these sort ofinterdisciplinary interfaces and
and in in encouraging an openminded but critical attitude to
things in general and researchin particular.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
And these conferences that you have beyond the brain.
Is that part of the network?
Is that part of the medical andscientific network?
Speaker 2 (31:35):
Yes, absolutely.
And and so so those, theMystics and Scientists
Conference, that those go backto 1978.
And so this year was number 45.
And and they were initially.
They were initiated by theScientific and Medical Network
at the time and ReconTrust,which I mentioned before.
(31:57):
Yes, then they were runexclusively by ReconTrust for a
number of years.
And then the network came backin jointly in in 19, in 1980s,
late 1980s, and then ReconTrustdropped out and and then so
we've been carrying the torchsince then.
(32:17):
So that's the Mystics andScientists Conferences, then the
Beyond the Brain Conferences.
These were set up in 1995,following a meeting I had with
Willis Harmon and the Instituteof Neolithic Sciences in 1994,
as I went to their meeting inChicago and we decided to launch
this jointly, the firstconferences in Cambridge in
(32:41):
August 1995.
And we had Stan Groff andWillis Harmon and Charlie Tartt
was also there and we had we hadcapacity audience of 300 people
coming to Cambridge for threedays.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
So?
And the Galileo Commission?
How does that fit into thiswhole movement, so to speak?
Speaker 2 (33:05):
Yes, the Galileo Commission is a project of the
scientific and medical networkfocused particularly on science
of consciousness, but also onexpanding the philosophical
assumptions beyond a purelyscientific, materialist view.
(33:26):
And the reason it's called theGalileo Commission is that, like
Galileo, we are asking peopleto look through the telescope
and the evidence there is forconsciousness and conscious
experiences in mind being morethan can be confined to brain
(33:47):
function.
And that's already therealisation that James had.
So James, in his 1898 IngersollLecture on Immortality, he said
there are three ways that youcan think of the relationship
between the brain andconsciousness.
The first is it generates andproduces consciousness, and this
(34:08):
is still the majority view, asyou know from neuroscience,
philosophy and psychology andacademics generally.
The second second is that ittransmits consciousness in some
sense like a transceiver filter.
And the third is that it itpermits certain types of
(34:30):
consciousness or structuresconsciousness in a way.
And Ian McGillchrist defendsthe third of these views and
because he thinks that makes themost sense of the scientific
research that he's looked at.
So for me, reading that book,which I have behind me in fact,
(34:50):
was absolutely seminal moment,and that took me back to one of
the sources of William James,which is Riddles of the Sphinx.
A book that came out waswritten by an Oxford Don called
FCS Schiller in 1891.
And he didn't publish it underhis own name.
He was published it under atroglodyte, which is a cave
(35:14):
dweller and therefore areference to Plato's parable of
the cave, the Republic.
So the interesting thing is hedidn't think that, given the
views of his Oxford colleagues,that he could actually publish
that book with impunity.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
I know that feeling.
Yes yes, indeed, I know thatyou know some of my colleagues.
What cellular intelligence areyou nuts?
What are you talking about?
You know that kind of stuff Ihear often, often.
But coming back to you then Doyou have any children?
Speaker 2 (35:55):
Yes, I have two children, charlotte and George.
They're in their 20s.
Charlotte is a writer as well,and she does some marketing
communications work for StarlingBank, which is an online bank.
And then my son, george, is achef and actor, and so he had a
(36:20):
pizza slice company for a while,which he worked in, and he's
done a lot of other cooking jobs, and at the moment, he's just
finished his first year atBristol L Vic acting school, and
so that's his track at themoment.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
So have you asked your children the questions that
we were discussing at thebeginning of our meeting here
today about what their blueprintis for life, how they see
themselves at 70?
Speaker 2 (36:56):
I have.
I'm not sure I've done itdirectly, but I've told them the
story myself and I've alwaystaken the view to leave my
children as much latitude aspossible to be who they are and
become who they are.
And I've always say to themI'll support you in anything you
decide to do.
(37:16):
And I think that both of themare doing what they are here to
do and I think they know thatand they've often certainly
George has said to me that youknow, lord of his friends, have
(37:39):
just gone straight into acurrency or banking and they
just, they've just sort ofstepped onto their career ladder
without really thinking, as wewere saying before, is there
something unique that I can doand a contribution that I can
make?
And I've been there myselfbecause the reason I went into
(38:02):
the merchant bank was becausethat was the kind of thing that
people in my background wereexpected to do and I sort of
gradually dawned on me that thisreally wasn't the right place
for me to be.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
Yes, I understand that, but they're not following
in your footsteps, so to speak.
They don't seem to beinterested in philosophical,
mystical consciousnessexperiences.
Speaker 2 (38:36):
No, I wouldn't say that they were.
They're not uninterested, butit's just not their thing.
Speaker 1 (38:43):
Now reading about your biography, I came across
your friendship with theReverend Norman Cockburn.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Yes, Coburn, quite oddly enough, that's how it's
pronounced, like in Coburn'sport.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
Right, so tell me a little bit about that, because
that seemed to have a big impacton your life.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
Yes, you're absolutely right.
When I was in my 20s, I wasthinking about whether I should
go into the Church of England asa priest or the Swedenborg
Church, and I was already on theCouncil of the Swedenborg
Society, and so one of thepeople who was working there
(39:26):
said well, you should meetNorman Coburn.
He'll be able to give youadvice on this, because he was a
priest himself.
And so I arranged that and Ispent many hours talking to
Norman in his and I stayed athis house in New Maldon on
multiple occasions and he gaveme a large proportion of his
(39:49):
library, which was extraordinary.
So I've made complete works ofJung, the Catholic Encyclopedia,
the Encyclopedia of Religionand Ethics, jg Fraser's Golden
Bau, complete works ofSwedenborg, complete works of
Steiner, sacred books of theEast, and then the whole of Toin
(40:10):
B's study of history and a fewother books besides, and so
those are still in my library inScotland.
Those books and he was a personof the similar wide interests
to what was budding.
And the story that I just wantto relay, because I think it's
(40:33):
an important one, is when Iasked him what are the most
important things in life and hesaid love and freedom, and I
still think that's a reallyexcellent answer.
Speaker 1 (40:47):
Yeah, that's pretty good.
That's pretty good.
Can't do much better than that.
Love and freedom, did you say?
Speaker 2 (40:55):
Yes, love and freedom In that order, he said.
Speaker 1 (40:59):
Yeah, I agree with that.
I'm not quite sure what did hemean, or what do you mean by
freedom?
Speaker 2 (41:07):
Well, I don't know what he meant by it.
But I think the part of thecontext, the way I think about
this now, is the five principlesof Peter Dunof, which love,
wisdom, truth, justice andgoodness.
(41:29):
And so he always said the truthwill make you free.
He said this is what Jesus hasreported to us, said as well,
and the salvation in Easternreligions is liberation, it's
(41:50):
freedom, and so I think it'simportant for the flourishing of
the human being to be able todevelop freely, to express your
opinions, to, obviously, tolisten to others, to be
considerate and all of that.
And I think in terms of Westerndemocracies, it really
(42:14):
developed very considerably inthe 18th century the American
Constitution and the amendments,the American Constitution, the
textbook influences there, and Ithink just over the last period
that these democratic freedomsare under threat from
(42:39):
authoritarian views which saythere's any one way of thinking,
it's our way of thinking, andif you don't think as we do,
then we will use whatever meanswe can to make sure that your
views aren't hurt.
Speaker 1 (42:55):
Right, right, right.
So, having done all thestudying that you have done, do
you believe in some kind of anafterlife?
Speaker 2 (43:10):
Yeah, I'm just going to say one more thing about
freedom, and then I'll comearound to that question For me.
I also studied at university.
I studied existentialism, andthey had they have an emphasis
on personal freedom orphilosophy of freedom.
But and this is the importantpoint I wanted to make- it
(43:32):
implies responsibility.
Yes, implies responsibility, andI think one without the other
is incomplete, but yeah.
So, coming on to your questionof the afterlife, or an
afterlife what?
Obviously, when I wrotesurvival, I wrote it when I was
(43:53):
30.
And so that's over 40 years agonow, and so in a way it's a
young man's book.
And what I was trying to dowith survival was I was looking
at the history of the mind bodyissue, you know, going right
back to indigenous societies.
They're saying what happens atdeath.
(44:15):
This is a big question doesdeath, extinction or
death a transition or atransformation, Right.
And, of course, if you, if youtake the view that we were
talking about earlier, that thebrain produces consciousness,
then there can't be, inprinciple there cannot be, any
consciousness or life beyond thedeath of the body.
(44:38):
It's simply category error.
You can't, can't get it fromthat.
And so you, and then I lookedat the different lines of
evidence, and so there's the,the, and this is also influenced
by Swedenborg, and I have achapter on Swedenborg and also
chapter on evidence and evidencein relation to logic, right.
(44:59):
And then I have a chapter onapparitions, on outer body
experiences, near deathexperiences and ostensible
communications from deceasedpeople describing what it's like
to die.
And the interesting thing aboutthose communications are that
they, they, they, they are veryconsistent with the description
(45:25):
and near death experiences thatsomething leaves the body and
and and, so that outer bodyexperiences into like a
temporary form of death.
Yes death is a permanent outerbody experience Right Now.
The next question is is what isit that survives, right?
(45:47):
I mean, I think so, I, I wouldbe.
I mean, of course, I won't knowif I don't survive death in my
body, I won't know that Ihaven't survived it, so because
there'll be nothing to thinkright or no awareness.
But but if I, if I do, then Iexpect to continue to evolve in,
(46:12):
in my sense of who I am, and Ialso, I also think that it's
possible that we have deeperlevels of identity which are
currently in the, in theunconscious, and which can be
accessed in some sometimestherapeutic circumstances.
(46:35):
And and so the personality thatI am now in terms of my
heredity, my physical, myphysical body and so on, and I
think that is a is a moretemporary manifestation of some
deeper level of identity whichwhich may reappear, as Benjamin
(46:58):
Franklin said.
He said I expect to reappear ina new and improved edition.
And then you're back to thequestion of what is
consciousness, again, right, andand so so.
So I, I think that my sense ofmyself and will survive the
death of my body, but I'm notsure how things are going to
(47:21):
develop from there.
And, and I think what's alsointeresting in this respect is
the meeting party idea, becauseif you look at deathbed
experiences, or even experiencesand reports from hospices of
dying people, and then there's alot of reports, there are a lot
(47:46):
of reports of a welcoming party, and who's the welcoming party?
The people you love, yes, they,as it were, come and take you
away and, and this, this, Ithink, is I think this is very
interesting, and it's alsointeresting in relation to
terminal lucidity, which is awhole other topic, and and that
(48:07):
seems that so that the people,obviously the people who come to
take you away and arerecognizable as the people they
were, otherwise they wouldn't berecognized and so it seems that
the, the, that whoever it isthat comes to take you away, is
(48:31):
in a sense a continuation of thepersonality that you were maybe
20 or 30 years before.
But these are very difficultquestions and we should keep
them open.
As CD Broad said, I will eitherwait and see or, alternatively,
(48:51):
wait and not see.
Speaker 1 (48:55):
Yeah, not very satisfying, but I guess it's the
best thing we can come up withright.
Speaker 2 (49:01):
Well, I think you just need to be cautious in how
much you extrapolate.
Speaker 1 (49:06):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (49:08):
And so if you say point blank, is there an
afterlife?
I would say yes, but what I'vebeen saying in the last few
minutes is to try and give somenuance to what that might mean
and therefore our sort ofexpectations when the time comes
(49:33):
.
Speaker 1 (49:36):
Well, david, this has been fascinating, very
interesting, very excitingreally.
We will have a transcript sothat anyone who follows this
podcast can also read it,because there's a lot of very
deep, important ideas that wediscussed here.
(49:57):
I certainly will give it a lotof thought.
Would you please put me on yourmailing list for these
conferences beyond the brain andthe mystics, because I would
really like to know more aboutthem, david.
Speaker 2 (50:12):
Absolutely, you should be on our list already,
but.
Speaker 1 (50:16):
I will check.
Okay, I get the paradigm.
Speaker 2 (50:21):
Yes, and you should be on a list that receives
notification of our conferences.
If you haven't received abeyond the brain invitation in
the last week or 10 days, thenobviously you're not on the
right list.
So I'll look into that.
Speaker 1 (50:37):
Put me on the right list and I will feel right about
myself.
David.
Anyone who wants to learn moreabout David Lorimer or more
about his work, which is likeincredibly exciting and truly
pushing boundaries.
His website is davidlorimerco.
Have I got that right?
Speaker 2 (51:03):
It's couk, but it's co, not anything else it's co,
as in company that's couk.
Speaker 1 (51:09):
Co for company.
Okay, I will say it one moretime David Lorimer, one word dot
couk.
David, thank you so much.
It's been really a pleasure.
Speaker 2 (51:23):
Well, thank you so much for having me on this
podcast, thomas, and I lookforward to our reciprocated
Reciprocation.
Speaker 1 (51:32):
Me too.
Thank you, david, be well,bye-bye.
future.
So good morning or goodafternoon to you, david.
This is Pushing Boundaries, apodcast about pioneering
research, breakthroughdiscoveries and unconventional
ideas.
I'm your host, dr ThomasArvione.
My guest today is David Larimer, ma, pgce, frsa you will have
(00:25):
to explain to me what thosethings stand for is a writer,
lecturer, poet, editor andspiritual activist who is a
founder of Character EducationScotland.
He's former president of theWrecking Trust and the
Svedenborg Society program.
Director of the Scientific andMedical Network, chair of the
(00:49):
Galileo Commission Since 1986,he has been editor of Paradigm
Explorer, expanding horizons atthe interface between science,
consciousness and spirituality.
He was the instigator of theBeyond the Brain conference
series in 1995, and he hascoordinated the mystics and
(01:11):
scientists conferences everyyear since the late 1980s.
He's also author and editor ofa dozen books, including A New
Renaissance, transformingScience, spirit and Society,
science, consciousness andUltimate Reality Survival was a
(01:31):
question mark.
Thinking Beyond the Brain,whole in One, the Near-Dest
Experience and the Ethics ofInterconnectedness, and the
Beautiful Book of Poetry BetterLight, a Candle, published last
year.
David lives in I'm not quitesure how to pronounce it, but I
will give it a shot.
(01:51):
David lives in St Colombe, sirLeur's, which I believe is in
the south of France, close tothe Spanish border.
Am I right in that?
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Yes, saint Colombe.
Sir Larce, if you're using theFrench pronunciation.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
You do it so much better, thank you.
So, david, did I say anythingthat you would like to correct
or edit, or am I more or lesscorrect?
Speaker 2 (02:17):
No, absolutely.
The one thing I just note withamusement is that the Recon
Trust, it's the Recon Trustbecause it's the Recon.
Mountain, sir George Trevelyan,who was a mentor of mine.
He used to tell the story.
He was the founder president ofRecon Trust and he said an
(02:42):
American friend used to say well, george, how's your wrecking
trust?
Speaker 1 (02:48):
The wrecking trust.
So you don't pronounce the W.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
No, exactly it's Recon, it's Recon Trust.
But you wouldn't know thatunless you knew about the Recon
Mountain and the Recon area.
But it was just amusing,because in some ways it was a
wrecking trust.
It was something, it was newand unconventional and it
(03:14):
promoted holistic ideas in the1970s.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Right?
Well, going back to Recon,let's start way back in your
life, david.
I understand that yourgrandfather was Sir Robert
Lorimer KBE.
What does KBE stand for?
Oh, that's a knight of theBritish Empire, Ah okay, and he
was a famous architect and yougrew up on his estate in
(03:40):
Gibleston in Fife and Scotland.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Yes, that's right, he bought the.
He bought this estate.
Sounds slightly grand, but hebought the place in 1916, during
the First World War.
He had originally intended todesign his own house, but that
became impractical during theFirst World War, and then
afterwards he became one of thechief architects of the Imperial
(04:08):
War Grace Commission.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
So the reason I raised this is because I
understand that in some familypapers you found a phrase which
is the sense of another andgreater world which surrounds us
, which, though unknown to you,you have written has been a
central theme of your own work.
(04:32):
Can you tell me more about thatplease?
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Yes, so my grandfather.
I suppose I haven't thought ofit exactly like this, but I
suppose he was a mystic, in thathe had a very strong sense for
nature and his architecture andhis furniture indeed, because
I'm sitting at a desk that hedesigned and on a chair that he
(04:56):
also designed.
He used to get his guests up tolisten to the dawn chorus in May
and June if people came to stayfor the weekend, and that's
very early that's about 4.30 inthe morning, so you really have
to go back to bed if you'regoing to get enough sleep.
So I think he was really athome in nature and I think
(05:25):
probably Gibleston was sort ofretreat for him, although in
fact it's only two miles fromKelly Castle, where he was
brought up and where his father,james Lorimer, restored the
castle and the garden, and so hewas very familiar with the area
.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
So was that about the same time that the Spanish
architect who is so famous withall his kind of nature-like
buildings, like there inBarcelona, is it Gaudi, gaudi,
yes.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Yes, that's an interesting question, because my
grandfather's really atraditionalist and as was his
brother, the artist John.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Henry.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Lorimer, so a traditionalist in the best sense
of trying to maintain thecontinuity and particularly an
emphasis on crafts and craftsmen.
So he was part of the arts andcrafts movement and he had a lot
of craftsmen working with himand in fact one of the
(06:38):
biographies of him is calledLorimer and the Edinburgh
craftsmen.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
So did your father then in some way followed his
example?
What did your father's career?
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Well, initially, yes, because he in fact read
architecture at Cambridge.
But his father was quite anauthoritative figure and he
didn't think he was doing enoughwork, and so he really found
him a job which involvedeventually him going out to
(07:13):
Burma, and so he was, as it were, taken away from Cambridge and
stuck, stuck in to do some hardwork.
So that's what happened.
This was the 1920s, and then hewent to Burma in 1926 and then
(07:33):
the Japanese invasion happenedin 1942.
And so he walked out.
He didn't get caught up in theJapanese prisoners, but he and
he had.
What the other interestingthing about that was that he had
a huge collection of Burmeseweights, which were birds,
mainly birds of different sizes.
(07:55):
His father, when he went toBurma, his father said to him
Christopher, you should collectsomething.
And so when he arrived in Burma, he found that this was a quite
an inexpensive item to collect,and so I think he had about 100
of these weights in the end,and most of them are in the
(08:16):
Gulbenkian Museum at DurhamUniversity and then a small
number are in the OrientalDepartment at Cambridge as well,
as he was at Cambridge.
As I was saying in the 1920s.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
So then you yourself started as a banker.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (08:37):
I did yes, and my father thought that was a very
good thing because he was reallya businessman himself.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
So what made you switch from banking into a whole
other area?
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Well, I think you know at that age, unless you're
someone, like maybe yourself,who had a vocation for medicine,
in an early age, you're stilltrying to find out who you are
and what best, what activity?
you're best to pursue.
And so I went into I did partlyread economics at St Andrews,
(09:18):
and so I was kind of preparedfor going into banking in that
sense.
And then I found that really itwasn't didn't suit me at all,
and a key moment was when I wentto visit a flatmate who was
teaching at Charterhouse Schooland I thought to myself well,
(09:39):
this is much more the kind ofway of life that I'd like to be
able to lead and, you know, getbe involved in education.
And so after about 18 months Istarted to make some plans and I
then got into Cambridge to dothe education course which is
(10:02):
the PGCE element.
Oh, that's the PGCE, the letterspostgraduate certificate of
education, but I got in for theyear afterwards because I wanted
to spend a year abroad.
And this year abroad wasabsolutely critical part of
everything that's happened to besince because I took, I
(10:24):
recorded all my favorite musicand put it onto cassette tapes
as one used in those days, andthen I took four boxes of books
and I read all of those bookswhile I was on.
That.
Van der Jaar, as the Germanswould say, yes, yes, and that
(10:45):
really set the tone for myapproach, my interdisciplinary,
my interest in large number ofdifferent fields.
So it was really a criticalyear and a critical decision to
make.
And I spent part of the year inGermany and then part of it in
(11:06):
France, and as I'd alreadyworked at the Champagne House,
moëté Chandon, they were kindenough to invite me back in
September 1976.
And in fact, when I receivedthe letter saying that there was
a space for me, I resigned fromthe bank the next day, because
(11:29):
it was just a sign for me,because, as it happened, someone
else had canceled being able togo, and so it was your job.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
What was your job at Moëté Chandon?
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Oh, I was showing tourists around the cellars and
so I was basically a guide and Iwould do three to five tours a
day, and the rest of the time Iwas reading the books.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
I was there and I was shown around, and that was all
about 15 years ago.
You would not have been thereby that time, right?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
No, no, no, I was there 50 years ago, okay.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Wonderful place and they explain everything to you
and how they turn the bottlesevery couple of days and all
that kind of stuff, right?
Speaker 2 (12:26):
That's right.
That's the remouage it's called, and I don't know whether they
I mean I think it's pretty muchautomatic now, but in my day it
was all done manually and theremouer would turn 60,000
bottles a day.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
Amazing.
So, going back then still toyour childhood, I understand
that one key book that you readin your 20s, when you were still
working for a bank, wasTestimony of Light by Helen
Greaves.
Can you tell us more about howthat changed your life?
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Yes, that was a very important book, and the reason
for it was that it introduced meto this idea of a blueprint
that we have.
We each have an inner blueprintto our lives, which is a sort
of thread, and when I reflectedon this I asked myself a
(13:27):
question what kind of person doI want to be when I'm 70?
And I've reached that milestone, in fact gone slightly past it
now and immediately I realizedit wasn't an ex-merchant banker,
I wanted to do something else.
I wasn't cut out really forthat, and it gave me a sense
(13:50):
that you sort of tune into theopportunities, and so in a way,
that story I just told about theletter arriving at the right
time was an example of that.
Another example was when I sawthe advert to go to apply to a
(14:13):
teacher at Winchester College,and as soon as I saw the advert
I knew I was going there.
I knew that was the next step.
And as soon as George Blaker,when I joined the Scientific and
Medical Network 40 years ago,he said you're just the kind of
person we're looking for to runthe network, I knew that was the
next step.
And so that's an example, andI'm sure some of your listeners
(14:37):
will have similar experiencesthat of knowing that something
is going to come into your life,and then you get the sense that
you're on track.
And I think that's veryimportant, because it's easy to
go off track and if we get asense intuitively that we're on
track and I'm sure this appliesto you as well it's important.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Yes, it applies to me , luckily, but it does not seem
to apply to the majority ofpeople.
Like, the majority of peoplethat I have met in my life just
seem kind of lost and hate thejob that they have and have no
(15:22):
idea what they would really liketo do, except that they would
like to leave their jobs.
So what happened to thosepeople?
How come they don't have ablueprint?
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Well, they probably do, because the thing is to ask
yourself a question and tuneinto that.
And, of course, I suppose inthe majority cases they wouldn't
have the opportunity of havingread or even come across this
book, and so the whole ideawould be foreign.
But I mean, I think the closestyou can get to it, which does
(15:56):
apply to a lot of people, isthis sense of vocation and being
called.
And I think a lot of priests, alot of medical people and I
think they have a sense of beingcalled to do some particular
kind of work.
And I tried to foster this inyoung people through my
(16:24):
inspiring purpose program,because I was encouraging people
to look inside themselves theseare 10 to 15 year olds and ask
what sort of person they were,what do they really want to
achieve and contribute in lifeand how are they going to do
(16:44):
this?
And that involves thinkingabout yourself, thinking about
what you're suited to do andthen setting some goals about
how you're going to go aboutachieving these aspirations.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
That makes a lot of sense.
That makes a lot of sense Inthinking beyond the brain, one
of your finest books althoughthey're all fine, it's difficult
to pick one that's better thanthe others, but the one that
sort of appeals to me you wroteI regard consciousness as
fundamental Matter is derivativefrom consciousness.
(17:26):
We cannot get behindconsciousness.
Everything that we talk about,everything that we regard as
existing postulatesconsciousness.
There is no matter as such.
It exists only by virtue of aforce bringing the particle to
vibration and holding ittogether in a minute solar
(17:48):
system.
We must assume behind thisforce the existence of a
conscious and intelligent mind.
That's a lot to digest.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Well, that's Max Planck, isn't it?
It's Max.
Planck, that's not you, that'sMax Planck, no no, no, if I'd
said that, that would have beenextraordinary, and I was quoting
Max Planck, you were you areright.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
I'm sorry.
Thank you for pointing that out, but you totally believe in
that, isn't that?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
right?
Well, I think it's anextraordinary statement,
especially when you think thatit was made in 1931.
Yes, yes, At the same time hewasn't alone among the
physicists of the day.
You know Schrodinger,heisenberg, pauley they all
arrived at some version of thisof consciousness being
(18:41):
fundamental, and they wroteabout this.
James Jeans was another one.
And what I find reallyinteresting is that they were
having these thoughts, which isa reflection of where, in some
ways, you could say,consciousness studies has now
(19:02):
got to.
But they were having thesethoughts in the 1930s.
And if you look at Ken Wilbur'sbook, for instance, quantum
Questions, then he was lookingat this 25, 30 years ago and
that's the title of one of hisbooks where he's comparing
mystical writings with writings.
(19:23):
The great physicist David Bohmwould be another one.
And if you did a kind of test,is this written by a mystic or a
physicist?
Sometimes it's actually quitedifficult to know.
It's a kind of turing test forthe mind-brain issue.
So I think that's also anotherpoint to make.
(19:46):
I think is that this is a muchmore natural thought for a
physicist to have than abiologist, and because I think
biology and medicine to someextent, in the sense that it's
related to biology, is much moremechanistic in the way it
thinks of things.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
And this is Ian McGilchrist says that a left
hemisphere capture, that the wayof thinking is mechanistic and
indeed manipulative, as Ianwould say and I think physicists
that that was all blown out ofthe water by relativity and
(20:32):
quantum theory because they hadto think more widely.
And then the idea that theobserver might collapse, the
wave function, I mean this isunthinkable and sort of
equivalent in biology, even ifit's a controversial statement.
So I think it's easier forphysicists to think in this way
(20:54):
than it is for biologists.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
So of course I totally understand matter and
energy and particles.
But consciousness, like what isit?
What is consciousness?
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Well, many people have asked themselves that
question, and of course, it's aquestion that you can only, in a
way, answer reflexively, butbecause the difference between
and I was just rereading anarticle we're going to print by
David Bentley Hart in the nextissue of the journal that
(21:37):
consciousness is something thatwe have an immediate experience
of, and indeed, withoutconsciousness, we couldn't be
having this interview together,as Max Planck points out, and so
it's not like an object in theworld, which is what the rest of
science is about.
So you could take athird-person view of the brain,
(22:01):
but you can't take athird-person view of your own
consciousness.
The only way you could do thiswould be in terms of what the
Hindus would call the witness,and they're meditators, and I
include myself in that category.
I often have the experience ofwitnessing my consciousness, and
(22:27):
therefore they're not being acontent to that witnessing,
because it's a wider and deeperperception, if you like, and so
consciousness for me is my senseof awareness.
(22:49):
This is the subjective aspect ofit, but of course,
consciousness with a capital Cis a kind of topic for
philosophical discussion.
You can start giving somedefinitions if you want to go
down that route.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Right, yeah, but I'm not in any way being critical.
I'm truly trying to understandthis concept, Like it is so
abstract.
Consciousness, you and I canagree, is awareness, Like I know
who I am.
I'm conscious when I'manesthetized or when I'm
(23:24):
sleeping.
I'm not aware of who I am,although I'm still alive.
But consciousness for me nowmeans that I'm speaking with you
.
I'm sitting in this chair, Allthese kinds of things are part
of my consciousness.
But how can there be aconsciousness outside of me?
That's what I'm trying tounderstand.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Well, maybe it's an inside job, if I can put it that
way, because the kind ofoutside, inside is already a
categorization, and so I thinkthis applies to out-of-body
experiences.
Quote, unquote, because whatseems to happen is you have to.
(24:07):
By definition, you're not inthe same space, you're not in
physical space, you seem to bein a parallel space which has
enough similarity with physicalspace for you to be able to draw
some true inferences about, orhave perceptions about what's
going on.
But I think the way if you wereto talk philosophically for a
(24:32):
moment, then traditionally, ifyou go back into the history of
philosophy, you say well, what'sthe relationship between the
soul and the body, or the spiritin the body?
That was formulated, and thenyou've got the question of
what's the relationship betweenthe mind and the body, the
mind-body problem.
Quote unquote.
And then that was sharpened upby a Descartes and has been the
(24:56):
object of much discussion anddebate ever since.
And then, more recently, you'vegot the consciousness-brain
interface, thebrain-consciousness interface,
which is how we would is.
That's the issue we want toknow about now.
And so a lot of neuroscientistswould say well, there's no such
thing as the soul, it's just anoutdated category, we don't
(25:20):
need it anymore.
And some people would saythere's no such thing as the
self either.
Right, and Susan Blackmore, forinstance, they would say that.
But that's from a Buddhistperspective.
And again, there is a spectrumof possibilities here.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Right.
But going back to Max Planck,when he says I regard
consciousness as fundamental,matter is derivative from
consciousness.
I just can't unpack that.
I don't see how matter couldcome out of something that is so
abstract as consciousness.
(26:02):
Is consciousness another wordfor God?
I can't hear you, sorry, you'remuted.
Somehow you got muted.
Yeah, muted.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
Sorry, I don't know how that happened.
I think I must have hitsomething.
Yeah, yes, no, I understandexactly what you're saying there
and I think, if I think aboutit, then probably I would go
more for a dual aspect view,that there is something beyond
(26:43):
both matter and consciousnesswhich is refracted into the
inner and the outer, if you like.
But at the same time, I dothink that there is what the new
thought thinkers would say is auniversal mind or universal
consciousness, and that's calledan idealist position, isn't it
(27:05):
the idea that consciousness isprimary and the matter is
secondary or derivative from it?
There is a classic statement ofidealism and there are many
people who take that view, eventhough it's hard for other
people to find that intelligiblebecause it doesn't really.
(27:28):
You know, you can't make senseof it.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
Yeah right.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
So I suppose, if I really think about it, I would.
I'd be looking for something,for a principle you know beyond
what a plank calls consciousnessand saying that matter is
derivative from consciousness.
But Bernhard Castrat wouldprobably agree with that, and
(27:52):
maybe also Ebben Alexander,because they do take a sort of
full blown idealist view.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
So in the scientific and medical network that you are
you still involved with that?
Oh, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
No, I'm very involved .
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Okay, so let's pivot to that for a moment.
So what is that about?
What kind of work does thescientific and medical network
do?
Speaker 2 (28:23):
Well, we just we're just celebrating 50 years of
work this year.
So the network was founded in1973 by senior academics and
physicians and civil servantsenior civil servant, and the
reason that it was founded wasthat it was.
(28:44):
It was felt that scientificmaterialism didn't give an
adequate account of reality andepistemology and ways of knowing
, and that was partly becauseeach of the founders themselves
had a mystical experience or hadmultiple mystical experiences,
(29:07):
and so they knew personally atleast this was the inference
that they drew, if you're beingreally critical they knew
personally that there was moreto life and reality than was on
the surface, and it couldn't beaccounted for by a reductionist,
matter based view of the world.
(29:28):
And why this matters as well isthat it's a question of values
and it doesn't provide anadequate base for values, as I
think we were very aware now,and they were concerned that
particularly the youngscientists and medics were being
(29:51):
, as it were, indoctrinated intothis view of mechanistic
materialism that mind isunconsciousness or entirely
derived from the physical andthe brain, when, if you go back
as far as William James, he wasalready questioning this in the
1890s, and then.
(30:14):
So there are two aspects to thenetwork.
There's a, an outer facingaspect, which is our program,
and then there's an inner facingaspect, which provides a safe
space for people to haveimportant conversations and
share experiences that they'vehad, which they might not want
to share too widely, andespecially with skeptical
colleagues.
(30:35):
So our work is really atvarious interfaces of science
and consciousness, science andspirituality, science and
mysticism, science andesotericism, and and but not so
much science and theology, orscience and Christianity and so
(30:57):
well, or even science andphilosophy you could say you
know would be another interfaceand so we're really interested
in these sort ofinterdisciplinary interfaces and
and in in encouraging an openminded but critical attitude to
things in general and researchin particular.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
And these conferences that you have beyond the brain.
Is that part of the network?
Is that part of the medical andscientific network?
Speaker 2 (31:35):
Yes, absolutely.
And and so so those, theMystics and Scientists
Conference, that those go backto 1978.
And so this year was number 45.
And and they were initially.
They were initiated by theScientific and Medical Network
at the time and ReconTrust,which I mentioned before.
(31:57):
Yes, then they were runexclusively by ReconTrust for a
number of years.
And then the network came backin jointly in in 19, in 1980s,
late 1980s, and then ReconTrustdropped out and and then so
we've been carrying the torchsince then.
(32:17):
So that's the Mystics andScientists Conferences, then the
Beyond the Brain Conferences.
These were set up in 1995,following a meeting I had with
Willis Harmon and the Instituteof Neolithic Sciences in 1994,
as I went to their meeting inChicago and we decided to launch
this jointly, the firstconferences in Cambridge in
(32:41):
August 1995.
And we had Stan Groff andWillis Harmon and Charlie Tartt
was also there and we had we hadcapacity audience of 300 people
coming to Cambridge for threedays.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
So?
And the Galileo Commission?
How does that fit into thiswhole movement, so to speak?
Speaker 2 (33:05):
Yes, the Galileo Commission is a project of the
scientific and medical networkfocused particularly on science
of consciousness, but also onexpanding the philosophical
assumptions beyond a purelyscientific, materialist view.
(33:26):
And the reason it's called theGalileo Commission is that, like
Galileo, we are asking peopleto look through the telescope
and the evidence there is forconsciousness and conscious
experiences in mind being morethan can be confined to brain
(33:47):
function.
And that's already therealisation that James had.
So James, in his 1898 IngersollLecture on Immortality, he said
there are three ways that youcan think of the relationship
between the brain andconsciousness.
The first is it generates andproduces consciousness, and this
(34:08):
is still the majority view, asyou know from neuroscience,
philosophy and psychology andacademics generally.
The second second is that ittransmits consciousness in some
sense like a transceiver filter.
And the third is that it itpermits certain types of
(34:30):
consciousness or structuresconsciousness in a way.
And Ian McGillchrist defendsthe third of these views and
because he thinks that makes themost sense of the scientific
research that he's looked at.
So for me, reading that book,which I have behind me in fact,
(34:50):
was absolutely seminal moment,and that took me back to one of
the sources of William James,which is Riddles of the Sphinx.
A book that came out waswritten by an Oxford Don called
FCS Schiller in 1891.
And he didn't publish it underhis own name.
He was published it under atroglodyte, which is a cave
(35:14):
dweller and therefore areference to Plato's parable of
the cave, the Republic.
So the interesting thing is hedidn't think that, given the
views of his Oxford colleagues,that he could actually publish
that book with impunity.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
I know that feeling.
Yes yes, indeed, I know thatyou know some of my colleagues.
What cellular intelligence areyou nuts?
What are you talking about?
You know that kind of stuff Ihear often, often.
But coming back to you then Doyou have any children?
Speaker 2 (35:55):
Yes, I have two children, charlotte and George.
They're in their 20s.
Charlotte is a writer as well,and she does some marketing
communications work for StarlingBank, which is an online bank.
And then my son, george, is achef and actor, and so he had a
(36:20):
pizza slice company for a while,which he worked in, and he's
done a lot of other cooking jobs, and at the moment, he's just
finished his first year atBristol L Vic acting school, and
so that's his track at themoment.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
So have you asked your children the questions that
we were discussing at thebeginning of our meeting here
today about what their blueprintis for life, how they see
themselves at 70?
Speaker 2 (36:56):
I have.
I'm not sure I've done itdirectly, but I've told them the
story myself and I've alwaystaken the view to leave my
children as much latitude aspossible to be who they are and
become who they are.
And I've always say to themI'll support you in anything you
decide to do.
(37:16):
And I think that both of themare doing what they are here to
do and I think they know thatand they've often certainly
George has said to me that youknow, lord of his friends, have
(37:39):
just gone straight into acurrency or banking and they
just, they've just sort ofstepped onto their career ladder
without really thinking, as wewere saying before, is there
something unique that I can doand a contribution that I can
make?
And I've been there myselfbecause the reason I went into
(38:02):
the merchant bank was becausethat was the kind of thing that
people in my background wereexpected to do and I sort of
gradually dawned on me that thisreally wasn't the right place
for me to be.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
Yes, I understand that, but they're not following
in your footsteps, so to speak.
They don't seem to beinterested in philosophical,
mystical consciousnessexperiences.
Speaker 2 (38:36):
No, I wouldn't say that they were.
They're not uninterested, butit's just not their thing.
Speaker 1 (38:43):
Now reading about your biography, I came across
your friendship with theReverend Norman Cockburn.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Yes, Coburn, quite oddly enough, that's how it's
pronounced, like in Coburn'sport.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
Right, so tell me a little bit about that, because
that seemed to have a big impacton your life.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
Yes, you're absolutely right.
When I was in my 20s, I wasthinking about whether I should
go into the Church of England asa priest or the Swedenborg
Church, and I was already on theCouncil of the Swedenborg
Society, and so one of thepeople who was working there
(39:26):
said well, you should meetNorman Coburn.
He'll be able to give youadvice on this, because he was a
priest himself.
And so I arranged that and Ispent many hours talking to
Norman in his and I stayed athis house in New Maldon on
multiple occasions and he gaveme a large proportion of his
(39:49):
library, which was extraordinary.
So I've made complete works ofJung, the Catholic Encyclopedia,
the Encyclopedia of Religionand Ethics, jg Fraser's Golden
Bau, complete works ofSwedenborg, complete works of
Steiner, sacred books of theEast, and then the whole of Toin
(40:10):
B's study of history and a fewother books besides, and so
those are still in my library inScotland.
Those books and he was a personof the similar wide interests
to what was budding.
And the story that I just wantto relay, because I think it's
(40:33):
an important one, is when Iasked him what are the most
important things in life and hesaid love and freedom, and I
still think that's a reallyexcellent answer.
Speaker 1 (40:47):
Yeah, that's pretty good.
That's pretty good.
Can't do much better than that.
Love and freedom, did you say?
Speaker 2 (40:55):
Yes, love and freedom In that order, he said.
Speaker 1 (40:59):
Yeah, I agree with that.
I'm not quite sure what did hemean, or what do you mean by
freedom?
Speaker 2 (41:07):
Well, I don't know what he meant by it.
But I think the part of thecontext, the way I think about
this now, is the five principlesof Peter Dunof, which love,
wisdom, truth, justice andgoodness.
(41:29):
And so he always said the truthwill make you free.
He said this is what Jesus hasreported to us, said as well,
and the salvation in Easternreligions is liberation, it's
(41:50):
freedom, and so I think it'simportant for the flourishing of
the human being to be able todevelop freely, to express your
opinions, to, obviously, tolisten to others, to be
considerate and all of that.
And I think in terms of Westerndemocracies, it really
(42:14):
developed very considerably inthe 18th century the American
Constitution and the amendments,the American Constitution, the
textbook influences there, and Ithink just over the last period
that these democratic freedomsare under threat from
(42:39):
authoritarian views which saythere's any one way of thinking,
it's our way of thinking, andif you don't think as we do,
then we will use whatever meanswe can to make sure that your
views aren't hurt.
Speaker 1 (42:55):
Right, right, right.
So, having done all thestudying that you have done, do
you believe in some kind of anafterlife?
Speaker 2 (43:10):
Yeah, I'm just going to say one more thing about
freedom, and then I'll comearound to that question For me.
I also studied at university.
I studied existentialism, andthey had they have an emphasis
on personal freedom orphilosophy of freedom.
But and this is the importantpoint I wanted to make- it
(43:32):
implies responsibility.
Yes, implies responsibility, andI think one without the other
is incomplete, but yeah.
So, coming on to your questionof the afterlife, or an
afterlife what?
Obviously, when I wrotesurvival, I wrote it when I was
(43:53):
30.
And so that's over 40 years agonow, and so in a way it's a
young man's book.
And what I was trying to dowith survival was I was looking
at the history of the mind bodyissue, you know, going right
back to indigenous societies.
They're saying what happens atdeath.
(44:15):
This is a big question doesdeath, extinction or
death a transition or atransformation, Right.
And, of course, if you, if youtake the view that we were
talking about earlier, that thebrain produces consciousness,
then there can't be, inprinciple there cannot be, any
consciousness or life beyond thedeath of the body.
(44:38):
It's simply category error.
You can't, can't get it fromthat.
And so you, and then I lookedat the different lines of
evidence, and so there's the,the, and this is also influenced
by Swedenborg, and I have achapter on Swedenborg and also
chapter on evidence and evidencein relation to logic, right.
(44:59):
And then I have a chapter onapparitions, on outer body
experiences, near deathexperiences and ostensible
communications from deceasedpeople describing what it's like
to die.
And the interesting thing aboutthose communications are that
they, they, they, they are veryconsistent with the description
(45:25):
and near death experiences thatsomething leaves the body and
and and, so that outer bodyexperiences into like a
temporary form of death.
Yes death is a permanent outerbody experience Right Now.
The next question is is what isit that survives, right?
(45:47):
I mean, I think so, I, I wouldbe.
I mean, of course, I won't knowif I don't survive death in my
body, I won't know that Ihaven't survived it, so because
there'll be nothing to thinkright or no awareness.
But but if I, if I do, then Iexpect to continue to evolve in,
(46:12):
in my sense of who I am, and Ialso, I also think that it's
possible that we have deeperlevels of identity which are
currently in the, in theunconscious, and which can be
accessed in some sometimestherapeutic circumstances.
(46:35):
And and so the personality thatI am now in terms of my
heredity, my physical, myphysical body and so on, and I
think that is a is a moretemporary manifestation of some
deeper level of identity whichwhich may reappear, as Benjamin
(46:58):
Franklin said.
He said I expect to reappear ina new and improved edition.
And then you're back to thequestion of what is
consciousness, again, right, andand so so.
So I, I think that my sense ofmyself and will survive the
death of my body, but I'm notsure how things are going to
(47:21):
develop from there.
And, and I think what's alsointeresting in this respect is
the meeting party idea, becauseif you look at deathbed
experiences, or even experiencesand reports from hospices of
dying people, and then there's alot of reports, there are a lot
(47:46):
of reports of a welcoming party, and who's the welcoming party?
The people you love, yes, they,as it were, come and take you
away and, and this, this, Ithink, is I think this is very
interesting, and it's alsointeresting in relation to
terminal lucidity, which is awhole other topic, and and that
(48:07):
seems that so that the people,obviously the people who come to
take you away and arerecognizable as the people they
were, otherwise they wouldn't berecognized and so it seems that
the, the, that whoever it isthat comes to take you away, is
(48:31):
in a sense a continuation of thepersonality that you were maybe
20 or 30 years before.
But these are very difficultquestions and we should keep
them open.
As CD Broad said, I will eitherwait and see or, alternatively,
(48:51):
wait and not see.
Speaker 1 (48:55):
Yeah, not very satisfying, but I guess it's the
best thing we can come up withright.
Speaker 2 (49:01):
Well, I think you just need to be cautious in how
much you extrapolate.
Speaker 1 (49:06):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (49:08):
And so if you say point blank, is there an
afterlife?
I would say yes, but what I'vebeen saying in the last few
minutes is to try and give somenuance to what that might mean
and therefore our sort ofexpectations when the time comes
(49:33):
.
Speaker 1 (49:36):
Well, david, this has been fascinating, very
interesting, very excitingreally.
We will have a transcript sothat anyone who follows this
podcast can also read it,because there's a lot of very
deep, important ideas that wediscussed here.
(49:57):
I certainly will give it a lotof thought.
Would you please put me on yourmailing list for these
conferences beyond the brain andthe mystics, because I would
really like to know more aboutthem, david.
Speaker 2 (50:12):
Absolutely, you should be on our list already,
but.
Speaker 1 (50:16):
I will check.
Okay, I get the paradigm.
Speaker 2 (50:21):
Yes, and you should be on a list that receives
notification of our conferences.
If you haven't received abeyond the brain invitation in
the last week or 10 days, thenobviously you're not on the
right list.
So I'll look into that.
Speaker 1 (50:37):
Put me on the right list and I will feel right about
myself.
David.
Anyone who wants to learn moreabout David Lorimer or more
about his work, which is likeincredibly exciting and truly
pushing boundaries.
His website is davidlorimerco.
Have I got that right?
Speaker 2 (51:03):
It's couk, but it's co, not anything else it's co,
as in company that's couk.
Speaker 1 (51:09):
Co for company.
Okay, I will say it one moretime David Lorimer, one word dot
couk.
David, thank you so much.
It's been really a pleasure.
Speaker 2 (51:23):
Well, thank you so much for having me on this
podcast, thomas, and I lookforward to our reciprocated
Reciprocation.
Speaker 1 (51:32):
Me too.
Thank you, david, be well,bye-bye.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.