God and Relevance Realization | with John Vervaeke
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 12. 2019
- John Vervaeke is an assistant Professor at the University of Toronto working in Cognitive Science. We discuss his model of reality and how it related to God and to Christianity.
This is the second discussion I have had with John, you can find the first one here: • Cognitive Science and ...
My links:
Support this channel: thesymbolicworld.com/support/
patreon: / pageauvideos
subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/jonatha...
paypal: www.paypal.me/JonathanPageau
website: www.thesymbolicworld.com
facebook: / thesymbolicworld
twitter: / pageaujonathan
Bitchute: www.bitchute.com/channel/page...
Dtube: steemit.com/@symbolism
The unofficial facebook discussion group:
/ 1989208418065298
The outro to my videos was written by Matthew Wilkinson
My website designers, Anomalist Design: www.anomalistdesign.com/
The music at the opening is Russian Eastern Overture, by Rimsky Korsakov.
I love John Vervaeke's mug: "Everything I say will be on the exam."
The notification for this video was a tidal wave on my salience landscape
I'm pretty sure if you ever got JP, JV, PV, and the other JP all in the same room together, they'd spontaneously form some sort of voltron with a giant JVP across the chest, and rocket through the ceiling into space
LOL
@@PaulVanderKlay I can actually hear your booming laughter in my mind. I'm tickled.
You are so right. Question is do we build it?
This should have been the 4 horseman of meaning group that had the conversation for Jordan's channel.
I don't think they'd rocket through the ceiling into space...
...
...
They'd morph into a luminous ball of purity and transcend toward a higher realm.
I love how accessible John is, he always seems willing to wrestle with the ideas of Jonathan, Paul, Mary, Sevilla and anyone who honestly engages with his work!
I can't help but think that if Socrates was around today in our post-internet world, he would do something very similar, and use technology to connect with people from around the world in order to reach out for the best ideas and hone his own worldview.
If someone deserves tenure in our current academia, it would be John Vervaeke, congratulations!
He certainly does deserve it and I'm very happy for him.
How “combinatorial explosion” hasn’t become the no.1 reference to sex for nerds since the publication of Vervaeke's Meaning Crisis series shows just how criminally underwatched it’s been.
Lol! Thanks Benjamin.
Great. Now I'll be in danger of blushing every time I say it.
Good one...
Or maybe because once you watch John your mind becomes more mature even at young age.
Hahahaha this was gold
Oh my, Christmas came early this year! :) This was wonderful! So much good stuff here. I'll comment on the "machine code" metaphor I use. I see machine code as the software side of the hardware/software divide which sort of maps onto matter/mind. So I agree that narrative is learned. This is where we get (once again) back between the emergence (bottom up) and the emanation (top down) divide. Software is top-down, hardware is bottom up. Parents teach give their children the machine code. Parents love their children into personhood (see John's great talk on agape). You can in this difficult space between them also the difficulties with abortion and euthanasia. We are going to be in the same murky waters with artificial intelligence (humans "loving" life into silicon and wired things) of our own creation. In some ways we've been doing this with animals through domestication.
I also appreciated how Jonathan noted that as we "go up" we in a sense ascend via narrative, mystics or philosophers may arrive at a place where they say narrative ends, but as you "come down" again narrative commences. It is, that sense, like the air we breath. It is also why language seems to fail as we "go up" but we can't talk that realm above "the moon" (see CS Lewis Discarded Image) again without using language and air when you "come down".
Anyway, so so much fun. Can't wait to meet these guys in person in 2020! Face to face is always far richer and better. Words on screens becoming flesh! :)
The only thing that would make the video better would be if Jonathan would giggle more. That always brightens my day. :)
Thanks Paul. Your comment is excellent. I also look forward to all 3 of us talking in person. It will be wonderful.
Paul, your addition here is wonderful for tying this together, adding another layer of language to the discussion. What is so important about these conversations between Jonathan , John, and you is that all of you are, together, moving the ball forward. This communication taking place with the ease and speed, would never have been possible before. Through this process, there is hope that a thread is being created to lead people out of the labyrinth of the meaning crisis. It is such a privilege for me to listen in on these conversations. I, also, look forward to listening in on the conversation where the three of you get together. You three are not just spinning in circles, you are getting somewhere .
In older days, when you were sitting at the dialogue-machine, programming the big computers (also often tellingly called electronic brains, ger. Elektronengehirne, chin. dìannâo), you had to switch on the translator, or else you would receive as answer only a non-understandable series of 0, 1, ... In the artful technique of neuro-linguistic programming via hypnosis the procedure shows some analogy: If, e.g., you want to block out pain-sensations (at the dentist`s or so) you (auto-)suggestibly induce a message to the "dark consciousness" by creating a somehow "nonsensical" (i.e. weired, dreamlike, fantasmatic) narrative, made up of singular memetic or eidetic "units", to accomplish this goal - and even the sciences, until now, seem not to be perfectly clear about what thereby is actually happening, but they work on it.
@@johnvervaeke How about Jon's Giggling, Do you have an opinion on that
"God saved me from God." In other words: those who do good, because they want a reward in haven (egoistic) vs those who do good, because good is good, now and forever.
58:26
God is boundless; the Logos is the expression of the boundless; through the expression is how limited things appear; the expression of the infinite is equal to the infinite; this is what makes the world really exist.
love this
I'm pre-liking it for good measure. Will watch later. I love how a carver and a university professor can just casually talk about the structure of reality. It's so cool. ;)
That's unifying
I'm late to learning about Vervaeke's work, but I'm working my way through the meaning crisis series. So grateful to have access to discussions like these.
These kind of discussions are so important. Co-creating a space where they can vacillate between the center and the fringe to stake out common ground. Super enjoyable.
This is wonderful gentlemen, and really moves the conversation forward.
Always a pleasure to listen to you two !
JP= Jonathan Pageau
JV= John Vervaeke
• Returning to the house
• JP uses words he learned from JV
• Utopia is unreachable, Eugenics is mired in skepticism
• JV trusts JP because JP illustrates to JV that he is coming to have a dialogue in Good Faith
8:44 Lets Talk About God, All the Theisms
13:10 1. Metaphysical Necessity
Getting into relationship with Reality
*Meaning can’t be done without Language*
20:58 *The Problem of Illusion*
The Psyche,
27:50 “A Person is a landing of a nature in an actuality” (??) 30:23 In Communion with other persons, other igstantiations of the Human Nature
33:27 The Human Nature gathers all the other natures with himself, in love
37:55 (I’m fine with all that too)
39:57 Collective Intelligence, Collective Rationality, Collective Wisdom
I usually use JBP for Jordan B. Peterson to differentiate him from JP which is Jonathan. I don't know Jonathan's middle initial. I always think three letter initials are higher resolution than 2. Four is really too much. :) PVK
When Vervaeke was saying "JP" around the beginning of the video, I believe he was talking about "J.P. Marceau" given the context that he mentioned "His conversation with Mary(kochan)". Just in case there was confusion. So many JP's. They're multiplying!
Granite Yaerton thanks!
Yay another one with Johnny V
Congratulations on your tenure Dr. Vervaeke!
Thank you both deeply. I love when I find a talk that really stretches my thinking and understanding. Also thanks to JP for the most comprehendable explanation of Christian personhood I have ever found. Finally I can get on board with the idea.
I love you guys. This is beautiful, an honest grappling with the transcendent. Both trying to integrate/marry incredibly different perspectives. Both honoring what they have embodied and what has been fruitful in their lives. They aren't peddlers of abstract ideas, they both walk-the-talk. Beautiful.
"The expression of the infinite is equal to the infinite."
- Jonathan Pageau
I love that. Why is it the most important thing in Christianity?
Because it means that the logos, the expression of God, is God. John 1:1. And so that also means that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Uniting in his one person the nature of man and the nature of God.
Mary Kochan always a blessing to see you in the comments section.
@@michaelparsons3007 thank you
Mary Kochan And through Christ, we in Christ is becoming all in all in a way that was not initially. The Fullness all in all.
Luke Thompson Would it be heretical to say that it is analogous to the ultimate in data compression? That God in His fullness could only appear to us in “compressed” form, and yet through His life, death and resurrection here, He has opened up an ever unfolding, ever increasing image of Himself that will ultimately fill the whole world?
This is what healthy dialogue looks like.
Around 15:40 he uses an analogy about english being psychologicaly indispensable but not metaphisically necessary. I want to argue it is metaphisically necessary.
English is a particular of language. Language is a form of information encoding/decoding. No information can be transmitted and received (and interpreted) without language. If information is a part of Vervaeke's "Nature" definition. Than language has to be included.
Yes indeed. I have thought of that many times when he has made that argument. I think it is very weak analogy for what he's trying to get at purely for the reason that you said.
I agree--I thought the same thing at that part.
John dismisses language on the basis of it being arbitrarily 'English', but spoken language, or American Sign for that matter, is simply a linear version of the structured human thought that sits behind all language. This is well understood in linguistic theory as 'generative grammar' and having a biological basis, most definitely a part of 'nature'.
Thanks John and Jonathan.
Grateful to both Jon & John, as I'm integrating both of their Knowledge contributions in different ways.
Found both through Jordan; All 3 continue to be integral influences in leading me to more clarity on how to lead a better life.
Great talk both of you! Absolutely phenomenal. I really appreciate!
I would like to comment on John's answer to the question of whether the Ultimate reality is personal. Jonathan made multiple great points on the necessity, that "personhood" is not merely an emergent property that stops at humans (as that would make the notion of a "person" ultimately an illusion), but it needs to "scale up". John, you did not refute these arguments but instead maintained that you can see why people would like to consider the Ultimate reality as a person, but maintened, that you do not hold this personal reality as a existential necessity.
After listening this conversation (and parts of your conversation with Mary and J.P. from Paul's video), I got the impression that you have a considerable existential preference on the impersonal reality in that you wish to help people improve their lives, even if they cannot afford faith in a personal ultimate reality (i.e. God). You have demonstrated time and time again, that you are a true humanist who cares deeply for his fellow men. In this you truly display the heart of Christ: You see modern people are like sheep without a shepherd and you wish to teach and help them (even with the expense of your own comfort), like Jesus did in In Mark 6:34. I really respect and admire that.
One "problem" with the ultimate reality being personal in nature is, that our relationship to that reality becomes... personal. And personal relationships are not neutral. If the ultimate reality is a person, then that person might hold opinions on my choices. This person might even make some choices for me. Both are most terrifying ideas to us, as we would prefer to be independent. You do not wish to burden people you try to help with these kinds of "barriers of entry" and your neutral and respectful approach to all traditions is what makes your Awakening-series so good.
So if I have understood this correctly, then I totally understand why you would maintain this neutrality. But then I also struggle to see how sincerity, love and truth play out in this. And I also struggle to arrange my thougths into a question, that is not unduely personal and does not come off as confrontational so I apologize if this comes of as such... Is it ultimately a good reason to opt for impersonal reality instead of a personal one, because you are put off by the fact that not all people can afford a meaningful relationship with the personal reality? You propaply have other reasons, but this is a reason that I picked up from your answers. It is an unselfish one, but unselfishness is not a guarantee of a good outcome: not all sacrifices yield positive outcome (like in Jordan Peterson's take on Cain and Abel).
I hope it did not come as too personal. Please keep up the good work. We all learn so much.
Wow, congrats on your tenure professor!! I admit, I had to look up what it was first.
Those last few single notes (sorry, I mean self-partnered notes) at the very end of the video pulled on my heart in some type of way. I've never noticed them before. So sad and beautiful??!
2 lecturers I have been following separately come together. Fun.
Highly interesting to listen to :) Thanks alot
My favourite interview view ever.
Great talk.
Consciousness is "The Map of The Creator"
Then what does that make us?
God is always one step ahead of his creation. creation never ends. heavy subject. I wish i was there to have a discussion with both of you.
Half way through. Feeling a few stories below these two.
The conversation starts at 10:00
If you want to skip all the "I"'s
The two of you and Paul Vanderklay are talking around panentheism with this notion of simultaneous emanation and emergence. I'll say it again, panentheism (as opposed to panpsychism) and open theism (as opposed to process theism) deeply address the meaning crisis as John has articulated it.
I've tried to synthesise one topic here - I hope it's useful for whoever comes across this :)
If personhood cannot uniquely instantiate ontologically & metaphysically then it becomes illusory, a kind of Maya.
Anything we say about God is analogy; we can never speak directly about God. When we say God is a person, it’s not in the same way that we are people. He is the source of personhood. If we say God is love, there is a hierarchy, meaning God is the source of all manifestations of love. It's not equal to our experience of love. It is always moving towards this infinite.
God is the source of personhood, although God is also the source of oceanhood & treehood - He is the source for all natures or forms.
So, there is a pattern but how do we get this uniqueness, specificity, & identity of personhood? Everything has an instantiated nature - even trees have ‘personhood’. What gives humanity or anything its unique personhood or instantiation?
Saint Maximus understands this as a hierarchy of natures. The human nature, having mind, creating and participating in meaning, gathers all the other natures into itself. He depicts the human as the top of the mountain, the centre or middle, gathering all the natures into himself. This is akin to Aristotle's notion that everything has form & the human mind is capable of gathering all the forms into itself. So, the human mind has the capacity to conform to the source of all the forms.
So, the mind gathers, it both sees and participates in patterns - for Pageau this ontologically stacks up - the gathering does not halt within the mind but abstracts into higher bodies also, nations, powers, angels. Mind is the gathering together where personhood is instantiated into actuality. In a sense we are like God - having the ability create unity from multiplicity, creating identity, form, cohesion through this process.
This unique instantiation of personhood naturally occurs within the mind.
Additional factors to account for:
- The role of love in this process
- Multiplicity & Unity
- Contact epistemology
Thanks
59:00 The Universality in the Particular.
It seems that John refers to a contentless mystical experience whereby any outcome manifestation of that is a meaningful psychological narrative. God for him can mean anything that people explain psychologically. When he talks about God, meaning, narrative, it means nothing in the ultimate analysis, it is just a mere play for the limited time we have, this is truly despair if one is sensible to it. It sounds as if there meaning but in reality it is just a arbitrary since God has as many narratives as there are philosophies and religions and myths. God can become anything and it is at our disposal for that, even though nothing really matters, except our make belief. If God is not a willing agent who is consistent with Himself, then any contradictory path or narrative will be illusory and life meaningless even when we say I found meaning. Really, Being or God means nothing but a mystical jump with ourselves. A leap of blind faith to it and from it to the world. The basis for antithesis is gone, truth and nom truth is gone, everything is relative and a play at meaning. This is worst than nihilism, is self deception at its best.
That was fantastic guys! Thank you!
Jonathan I would love it if you could do a talk at the University of Toronto!
Everything we say about God is only analogical, not equivocal or univocal, it says something true but it doesn’t exhaust it it yet the inexhaustible part doesn’t contradict or deny that which we can know of God.
"The expression of the infinite is equal to the infinite."
This statement hit me hard and continues to work on me at this moment.
Just riffing here... so that which is eternal, infinite and essentially Being-in-itself is expressed in particulars, in time and space, as beings-in-the-world.
How do we integrate this profound metaphysical principal into our lives, our relationships, and our worldly experiences?
Is it possible to really grock this concept?
That was the money-line take-away from this video for me too. :)
As far as I can tell, this is what Kierkegaard describes as the “paradox which is inaccessible to thought.”
It's as interesting as it is obtuse. Adds up to little more than useless navel-gazing if you ask me. Let's be good old Socratics and pay attention to what is being expressed; that if anything is what I go home with.
The Bible says God is our Rock, but also says: The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.“ Heb. 1
Does anyone know if there's a story behind Pageau's musical choices? The minor 3-2-1 phrase is very prominent in this new piano outro (based on the old horn intro melody, which starts and ends with the same phrase).
I wish you guys could talk about “fields” - Maxwell and T.F. Torrance had some fascinating things to say about this- Even morphogenetic fields were a “thing” before Sheldrake. Platonic meets emergence....
36:00 is all you guys need to talk about at thunder Bay. Wish I could be there.
It’s really very simple. Direct your attention to the witness of your conceptions. That’s your constant. The only way to know change is through the constant. We all have it. We just don’t pay attention to it. Form plays in the constant.
Jonathan, where (and when) are you, John Vervaeke and Paul VanderKlay going to meet? Thanks.
Ave Maria Purisima ❤️
John Vervaeke: "I don't think that the ground of my personhood is a person".
John Vervaeke's mother: We need to talk.
Just before half the conversation Pageau was saying that the nature of person must have an anchor, must have its original or logos and so God is that anchor not anything below hanging from nowhere or for just the time being. The Bible saus we are created in the image of God, not the tree, but man. Whereas a tree for example does not image the logos fully, but is just an incomplete part of it, yet as also the Bible says, the whole creation display to a degree the glory of God.
The Father, through his son, Jesus Christ, saved me from thinking I'm good.
Only God is good.
If collective intelligence is achieved purely at the level of rationality, there will be an attempt to usurp God.
Has been.
You mean general artificial intelligence?
"Psychologically indispensable but not metaphysically necessary"... how to have your cake and deny its existence.
No I think on its own it's well taken, but that doesn't mean it's true of what he's using it for. It's not.
And God's person-ness is nothing like his tree-ness.
The fact we're made in the image of God and he chooses to comune with us personally cinches that.
To say God is also not mere person belies the fact that in the sense he's a person he's a person and the sense he's not he's not, but in no sense... is he a tree. God might be the grounding of persons and trees, but persons bear his image, trees don't, they bear his fingerprints, his handiwork, his artistry.
Sorry to but in.
@@ravissary79 No problem, I remember JV using it with reference to the English language, but it could apply to anything you don't want as part of a 'reality'. I guessed it had something to do with not being universal, but I'm not sure.
Everything is like this. We can never prove the existence of anything. But we must believe that what our senses tell us is correct, otherwise we will suffer.
You must aim at the target, even though the target might not exist.
Can anyone recommend some other JV videos?
The Boundless is equal to the Logos (which is the expression of the infinity)
Wow !
Anyone have the link of the discussion between “Mary and JP” they reference your on several occasions (probably got the names wrong).
czcams.com/video/ZeKXyLZtJGIw/video.html
I think Christianity does talk a lot about flow. When Christianity talks about leaning not on your own understanding, not thinking about what to say, not worrying about what to eat or what to wear or the future, but instead following God, that's flow. Don't think, just act!
I perceive alot of the lessons I've learned from looking into taoism and stoicism can be found in christianity; briefly touched upon, not as fleshed out. I mean we speak of spiritual maturity in the faith and it giving you a strength as well as an ease in terms of how you face adversity... for example how the early Christians ceased greeting each other with "shalom" ( peace) and instead used "maranatha" (come, lord) as Jesus said there will be no peace. It's not like the Christian's were sad saying "Come, Lord" rather they were content and ready.. ( sort of an example of flow/ acceptance of what they cannot change; nature, in my opinion)
"I'm gonna have to cut back on virtual presence come January..." - that would have been January 2020. Ouch, little did we know 😷😬😁😷 Love these conversations :)
Utopianism is the absolute arrogance of man. As limited beings, thinking we can bring about a perfect system.
I honestly think God's use of and then discarding and judging of great kingdoms in the bible is his patience and use for people he allows to exist, but then the exhaustion of his patience as their society reaches critical mass, as they reach maximum power meets hubris in a way that will result in something he absolutely cannot tolerate.
I view most of the verses of sin in Genesis 3, and then the confusion of language at babel, these are all stop gap limiters on human power coupled with hubris.
They're all attacking utopic human power in defiance of our real purpose.
Postmodernism has the same arrogance. For exactly the same reason.
Reality is that Jesus is a historic figure. He excisted. The church came out of the teachings of Jesus and the people who saw and spoke Jesus were all prosecuted. They all, except John died a violent death. This is relevant in my very humble opinion. Great conversation by the way.
probably, but his story being sacrificed yet innocent, looks a lot like Socrates. It is more useful to think of the stories as a mythological pattern or metaphor.
Idea for future video: Symbology of Rudolf the Red Nose Reindeer
That one is easy. The stone that was rejected by the builders has become the capstone.
@@JonathanPageau is like a quizmaster at this stuff. Amazing! :)
@@JonathanPageau What about the symbolism of holy water?
Can anyone help me with the difference between perspectival and participatory knowing? Here's my understanding. Perspectival knowing is the knowing of someone's perspective, and participatory knowing is knowing by state of identity.
But couldn't you argue that the reason you can take someone else's perspective is that you have participated in it at some point? You know how a hungry man's perspective because you have participated in that identity at some point - ie. if you had never been hungry, you would be unable to take that perspective.
I hope someone can point to the point I am misunderstanding.
Esben Andreasen I’m no expert but from what I understand it goes participatory knowing , procedural knowing, propositional knowing and perspectival knowing. The first three are more about narrative and perspectival is more of the myth part of story. I’m sure someone else will point out how I maybe wrong but that’s how it is making sense to me.
czcams.com/video/IhcgYgx7aAA/video.html
One question for someone who holds a no personal God as ultimate reality, is to ask whether something instantiated that is impersonal by nature is closer to Ultimate reality than other instantiations with personhood in the common meaning of the word. It seems very plausible and reasonable to answer yes to that. But then personhood becomes a lower sort of manifestation than the being of a tree, which also seems right to conclude that personhood is dispensable, not to be human, but to be one with God as the tree is one with ultimate reality (more in conformity to it by nature), thus as to our personhood in relation to God, it seems reasonable to think that it is illusory, and more than that, the real obstacle. But all this to anyone’s that is free from this weird thinking, knows naturally that we as humans are higher by nature than the tree, and so that which is more valuable or greater as beings, cannot be that which is lower and more meaningless as beings. Thus it seems more reasonable, all things being equal, to think that we are by nature closer to God than the tree, yeah that we out of the whole of the physical world, are the only beings created according to the image of God. And that instead of writing our personhood off by Christ, it is redeemed to a higher and and even closer similarity to the Divine Being.
Next time, give Vervaeke a blanket "I'll allow you this X" pass. He's was to high in politeness lol.
Apologispeak: a fundamental tool of one's communication skill-set in current year Canada; a prerequisite to success, in particular, within academic and political arenas.
@@jlloydb1of9 seems to drastically elongate point-making. Oh well ... I still enjoy John's point of view a lot, i just find myself wishing he'd spit it out.
@@joevoth I'm with you on that. It's distracting and interruptive. His ideas are worth considering, but they are also complicated by too much intellectual clutter.
He is avoiding the question and too me he confirmed he has nowhere as deep as a grasp of the meaningproblem as Jonathan and even me honestly
@@jlloydb1of9 That's a good one! Perhaps he's apologising for the white privilege that has given him the ability to speak with authority about stuff.
Are you guys talking about John Scotus Eriugena? I sure hope so. It took me about twenty minutes to land on the correct spelling in Google and get a hit :)
Philip k dick talks about eriugena and some Christian platonist ideas in the "exegesis of philip k dick"
We are differentiated by our material selves,
whilst we are integrated by our non-material selves,
I'm curious to know if any of you guys study Qabalah. The Hermetic Tree of Life in particular offers a great model for how we perceive and conceptualize God on many different levels. In the middle realm of the Ruach (which I equate to Soul or Psyche in the way that Jung uses it) are all of the God images and myths. Then higher up (above the Abyss as they say) is the realm of Spirit or Nothing. The ontology of how this works out is stated as 0 = 2, which is to say that above the Abyss is the 0, then below the Abyss, in the realm of manifestation, is all of the illusory 'somethingness' as duality, or 1 and -1.
A bit breathless, guys.
I say that within deep appreciation, and because of it.
Impossible, aspirational wish: have 2 conversations, the first breathless like this, the second slow and measured. Then make an outline for a book out of it.
Is it because of Time's run away train that no one has enough to slow down in, and get some more breaths in here?
I want you to do a symbolic interpretation of the 1985 movie “come and see”. It’s the best war movie/anti war movie ever made
Are you talking about the Russian movie?
"Thats what makes Human". 30:50.... I agree.
Jonathan can you help understand something you said?
I get that person in classical theism is an instantiation of a nature. And that God’s being is three instantiations. But it seems it must be more than that. Are you saying that everything God created is a person in that sense of instantiation? But would not this diminish the difference of God and everything else, and us and everything else in creation? To say God is personal is true of everything else, even a rock? And another question, what is there in the nature of a thing like a human or a tree that make them so? I think that we want to say that the features that makes a person must be , a capacity to know, to love, to intention, to reason, to will, to act. Which is rooted in the being of God.
When you follow John’s interpretation if your idea of person, are you saying that, those human features that trees don’t have are closer to God than the tree in resemblance? I really like that idea and fits well we us having been created in the imago dei as distinct to other creation. Even though imago dei fits primarily with the idea of representative administrators of God in the world.
Truth is truth wherever you might find it whether in Taoism or a message in a bottle but the truth Christ gives us gives us life everlasting.
Not sure if I am spelling this correctly, but can someone define hyperstansiation? Thanks.
69k subs!
Please explain the symbolism behind the number 69!
It's funny to me how scientist always find the most complex ways of describing something just to avoid calling it what it is.
When science tries to interfere with religion, you can think of an English sailor plotting a wrong course. He eventually plants his country's flag on the beach of Brighton, under the impression that he discovered a new country. (have to credit GK Chesterton for this) But because this experience makes a scientist feel like a fool, he will become more humble and come closer to the faith.
1:08:32 Yes John but again is not a matter of what we think is best for our development and meaning making. The question is, does it correspond to ultimate reality? So if there is a gap between the metaphysical necessity and psychological indispensability, whatever’s best for you, ultimately is nothing. It’s not what we make of the mystical experience but what the experience is telling us. The Impersonal experience tells us that our personhood is not essential and thus when it is expressed cannot be meaningful since it doesn’t have an analogous conformity to that that experience at all. It’s not up to us to make of ultimate experience what narrative and meaning we want, and what virtue we like to embody. It’s up to the Source of that experience to tell us how we should live, and it cannot have contradictory meanings or narratives, or is personal or not, it cannot be both. It is through the work of Jesus or not, it cannot be both, etc. That some have had a mystical experience and learned a lot of good practices and insight, doesn’t mean that that’s the ultimate path to live on, if it lacks something crucial for that conformity to the Logos, it should be considered incomplete. But if you have a narrative in which a God-man dies and rises again fulfilling countless of ancient prophecies and actualising ancient sacred patterns in history, and compare it to other stories, then you will have the capacity to discern what is essential and what is not, what is the ultimate goal and what comes short.
“Not sure if the person is an inherent feature of ultimate reality”. Meanwhile all of his experiences take off or begin from his person and return to his person and yet he thinks the other states he has obtained via his person searching and looking and learning are more ultimate. So funny
Haha very cool
I want a Santa Clause Obviously exists sweater. It is a winter holiday after all
A neural network done right, is a dialogue between nodes.
The first part of John’s answer was only an attempt to answer it from the bottom up, nothing from top to bottom, the question here is whether God has revealed himself to us and in what way, as an impersonal or personal being, and to answer this question one cannot consider subjective revelations but independent revelations from the Infinite Being, yeah like those revelations we find in the Bible and Jesus, historical, rising from the dead sort of revelations.
Remember Kopernikus was a Polish catholic monk,Trigered modern scientific revolution
Galileo was another one,Einstein wasent religios but he belived in something akin god
He also said Dostoyevsky gives him more than any scientist ever,
As Dostoyevsky said,…god is a cultural phenomenon,It defies Order and Morality.That’s what religion upholds
Biology across time, seems to be the achilleas heel of Physics and a materialist world view.
The difficulty in communication arises because we are moving from a heirachical maleish God to a flow like Goddess and people are at various transitional means of connection to either God. Systems of systems is best from a male point of veiw in easing tranlation
Alexander Kennedy that is a masculine idea and masculine intelligence pretending to penetrate or explain the feminine in a way it can’t do. So funny when guys think in drag.
Aquatonics I’m a woman and his comment made sense to me. Though I wouldn’t agree. I’d be curious to know how you would describe what he’s sharing.
@@Orthodoxi You learned those ideas from a man. Women can think in a masculine way. Thinking is itself inherently masculine and is a penetration of the mystery, of the feminine. Flow, if it is something a person is accessing or doing, is decidedly masculine. Masculine has all sorts of words it uses to attempt to penetrate the feminine, which is can not do. Which is why it is mystery, purity, etc. Not something understood and stated in a youtube comment. Guys talk about it all the time and brainwash girls into using their conceptualizations. Girls adopt the conceptualizations similar to how they
Aquatonics your experience and education don’t match mine. It seems with your frame there would most likely be no way to move forward in a dialogue. So I’ll leave it there with a suggestion that you may consider you have your framing incomplete in regards to general psychology. But if it is useful and meaningful to you, it at least is just right for you. Thank you for sharing.
With regard to Jonathan's examples of "Personhood" both of human beings and God, why can't I just substitute the word "Consciousness" ? After all the particulars are exhausted there is always a remainder. To me, that remainder constitutes Relation. It is stated that Moses conversed with God like a friend in the Tent of Meeting. If I had been there I would have asked Moses, What did He look like? Was He handsome? Powerfully built? Smart? Is He temperamental? Have a sense of humor? Is He visible? Do His clothes have seams?
Infinity does seem to be a weird thing? Is it best described by T.S. Eliot as a progressive journey in which we finish and come back to the beginning to experience it for the first time? Is it the number line that goes on indefinitely ( 1,2,3,4, . . . )? A story with no end? I don't know. Maybe it's elsewhere. Maybe here, there, and everywhere? :)
In describing religious experience to others, and myself, I also prefer the term "personhood" to be what I feel and understand as a best description. It's the one I reach for first in my toolbox. "Consciousness" can have political connotations that are confusing for me. "Being" especially the way Heidegger uses the term just seems too amorphous. It ( personhood) seems clear to me this is the way Jesus in the NT thought and spoke of the divine life. To those for whom personhood doesn't seem available as an adequate descriptor I would never discount the other terms to describe spiritual experiences, or any experiences. God communicates with folks however he wants, or needs to, no matter what our metaphysical and psychological needs or interpretations are. But that's only my own autodidactic self writing. I do believe Jesus is God's fullest expression given for us, but playing politics or other games of comparison of "quality experiences" just ain't my bag, not in the spiritual dimension, man.
1:07:57 Right but if the mystical experience manifests in the world with an infinity of narratives, and not just one path, why is it that there are disagreements between those narratives? It seems that the mystical experience of the infinite contradicts itself when it comes down to narrative. And if we simply stay with the experience without giving a narrative, a the unifying factor of all, this is also a narrative! Which is different from the other that say that it has a specific exclusive narrative. The problem Paul has is the gap between metaphysical necessity and psychological indispensability, where there should not be a gap. If a narrative is validated by its power and actual transformation, then the the narrative that have a perfect transformation must be that which conforms to the expression of the infinite, and there is no one else than Jesus in resurrection. Paul is like saying whatever you wanna transform into… as if the heavenly pattern undefinable, and I get to decide what to create. But Jonathan is saying that out of the infinity there is an infinite pattern of which everything that follows have to conform to in conformity to its nature and it cannot be just anything I want to become into, which is the very denial of the infinite Logos.
I am a total amateur, but I feel like Leibniz and the monads was at least an attempt of partial revitalizing these sorts of notions.
If you have a materialist, collectibles type world view,
you can see how it would make sense to group all religions together and stand proudly above them,
of course missing the point, that all religions attempt to unify the whole stack from top to bottom, some better than others it might be said.
In other words, there is no space for above or below a religion, since they are self contained belief structures.
p.s. I respect what John is trying to do, which seems to be accept religions for what they are and take tools or "psycho-technologies" from them as he needs them.
Atheist Sean Carroll h index 50. Who is a better scholar?
Atheist Daniel Dennett h index 58 Who is a better scholar?
Atheist Alex Rosenberg h index 30 Who is a better scholar?
Atheist Paul Churchland h index 33 Who is a better scholar?
Atheist Thomas Metzinger h index 30 Who is a better scholar?
17:11 🤔. . . Isn't this similar to the "my truth" / "your truth" argument ?
22:27 You speak of God through analogy?
"There is nothing so ridiculous, that some philosopher hasn't said it."
I thought I was pretty clever until I realised I’d not understood the thread of conversation for....about half an hour
30:00 ish
Read the protocols of the elders of zion and all your doubts will desapear!
I remember a time where I thought "all the mystics are just talking about the same thing." But this is not true. Read Rumi's Mathnawawi carefully (I got a copy from a Sufi in Jordan once) and in the opening Rumi makes it clear that the mystical path he is describing demands adherence to orthodox Sunni beliefs first. Or if you read St. John of the Cross carefully, there is no room to accommodate Buddhist meditation along with the way of prayer St. John is really describing. The "mystics" across different traditions at times describe something similar, but they are not the same. They belong to different religious traditions for a reason. Try to impose the idea of "all mystics being the same" on a Sufi sheikh and you will not get far (speaking from experience). Try it with a 'master' of Catholic mystical theology and you will not get far. Try it with a Zen master, and they might be more receptive OR they might just hit you with a stick instead.
-He clarified his position by the end of the video. But in the end, as Jonathan points out, one chooses a coherent path. Ultimately one can't avoid this question. What affords salvation of the soul?
Holy Shit
Wow, he referenced Whitehead.
Respect.
Opposite of respect.
@@manfredarcane9130 how's that? Whitehead wasn't disrespectful and neither is referencing him.
almost.....