Metamodern Spirituality | Updating Neoplatonic Spirituality (w/ John Vervaeke)
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 05. 2024
- Psychology professor and cognitive scientist John Vervaeke (@johnvervaeke) joins me to talk about how Neoplatonism (which has provided the worldview "grammar" of Western mysticism) is being revisioned in light of contemporary advances in philosophy, cognitive science, and cross-cultural exchange.
0:00 Introduction
1:21 Updating the Perennial Tradition
6:19 A Post-Two-Worlds Neoplatonism
12:20 "The One" according to 4E Cognitive Science
20:16 Ascent and Descent
26:05 Complexification as Narrative? Creating a Psycho-Ontology
36:01 Nonduality, Meaning, and Nihilism
44:30 Death and (Re-)Incarnation
53:11 After Life
Watch his Ralston College presentation "Levels of Intelligibility: Neoplatonism and 4E Cognitive Science" here: • Levels of Intelligibil...
www.BrendanGrahamDempsey.com
This talk, for instance, upon the lenses of neo-pagan religions like Umbanda in Brazil... is extremely Apollonian. It is like the Plotinus who was disgusted to "have a body" is still very much with us, because it is like talks about Neoplatonism are often running away from body and soul to a kind of "spirit" that is very much abstraction, deimbodied. Some neo-pagam religions such as we have here in Brazil: Umbanda, Candomblé, Nação, Batuque... are deeply about body, soul, familly, rituals, ancetors etc. Late-platonism (Iamblichus, even Próclus) and talks about BODY, soul, theurgy... are much more needed. It is like this "spirituality" rums away from soul for soul'd be closer to the body and matter, and matter'd be more evil. We are deeply involved by Abrahamical backgrounds that it seems we are always imagining a part of the soul that remains suspended, thst has not totally descended (Plotinus), so one shall remain pursuing this abstractions, emotionless abstractions, imaginativeless notions.
Excellent video. It is encouraging to see appropriate value placed upon Plotinus and the neoplatonic tradition more generally. I just watched the latest episode of “Let’s Talk Religion” which was on the nondualism of Kashmir Shaivism. Unlike Advaita Vedanta, it does not view multiplicity as an illusion, but just as much of a manifestation of Shiva as monism. As a result, it affirms the multiplicity and mutability of life in all of its pain and pleasure as opposed to trying to deny and/or escape such things.
I am loving your videos Brendan (it was also great to meet John Vervaeke). I am learning a lot - breaking into new dimensions of knowledge in several areas. I enjoyed the way John draws ideas together - and strongly identify with the impulse that he speaks of it terms of 'Zen neoplatonism'. There is a foundational idea that the Buddha called the Middle Way whose actual meaning has been almost completely lost from the tradition, accept perhaps in the realisation of a few great sages. While this is certainly not something that is generally acknowledged by Buddhists, it could be argued that the Buddha's Middle Way is a model for a metamodern spirituality. A metamodern critique of Buddhism might say that it has collectively has fallen away from the the path of reconciliation that the Buddha intended - that the nuance and subtlety of the Buddha's philosophical method has in general been lost. I believe that Carl Jung may have been the greatest exemplars of the lost Middle Way method of enquiry. He developed an instinct of the ever-present opposite, for the pairs of opposites, and for the fact that a third integrating position is always possible. Indeed it could be argued that the notion of the archetypal is itself a subtle conceptualisation that is necessary for the Middle Way - and perhaps also therefore for metamodernism. The Buddhist tradition posits a third and intermediate archetypal level of mind - a sambhogakaya - a level that is neither material and time-bound (nirmanakaya), nor completely transcendental and eternal either (dharmakaya). There is a profound cross-over of ideas here that could be explored. Your work has helped me to understand, and perhaps to embrace, my discomfort with Buddhist identity. I am a metamodern Buddhist - alert to the cognitive dissonances, adopting the intellectual discipline of metamodernism to deconstruct and reconstruct Buddhist narratives. For me, the main criteria in that enquiry is: what is true (at both relative and absolute levels); what works; what makes the world a better place; and what builds community and trust. When I have time, I write essays on these themes. Here is a link to one of them: mandala-of-love.com/2024/01/04/1-the-trikaya-doctrine-a-middle-way-model-of-mind/
Breathtaking
I’ve watched many hours of conversations with Vervaeke and this one may be the best yet. It raised the kinds of questions I would ask John, if I had his attention, and a few that I would not have thought to ask but was glad to hear his response nonetheless. Well done!
Thanks. That's great to hear. I was a little worried we were presuming a bit too much prior engagement with the ideas here, so it's good to hear the degree of depth affirmed by folks who are watching. :)
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey a bit more detail: I credit John with sparking my interest in Neoplatonism and have been reading Plotinus over the past year, so your leading question "how is this not your grandfather's Neoplatonism?" was perfectly apt.
That said, John suggested here that he thinks of The One as: (1) the "ground" from which emergence occurs, (2) the "canopy" that constrains emergent possibilities, and (3) the "polarity" between them.
That much leaves me asking: What happened to the Nous and to the World Soul? Is this not a Neoplatonic spin on non-reductive physicalism (e.g. identifying the physical universe with The One)?
Alternatively, is this not a Spinozist spin on Neoplatonism? After all, whatever the relative merits of Spinozism, I think it's fair to say that Spinoza's ontology is flatter (albeit infinite nonetheless) than what we get from Plotinus.
Some food for further questions on your next conversation with John. :)
Thank you Brendan for this wonderful interview. Even though I follow Professor Vervaeke for years now, this conversation shed light to many new aspects I was not aware of in his thinking. One question: does anyone know which publication is he talking about at 42:00? About that at-onement is not the point for RR? Thank you!
Great conversation. Please push for part 2, I want to hear more about Zen Neoplatonism, and the questions you're asking are on point. Thanks!
Thanks! Part 2 already recorded. Coming out on John's channel soon. :)
Thank you for sharing Brendan and John, watching this before I catch your second conversation just posted on John's channel, peace
What was said here about the One as ground, as well as goal, wasn't just the late neo-platonist Erugina, you can find something like that in Proclus, 5th century
This is amazing. Great work both of you. Thank you so much!🦋🕊🌹
Dear John, please look up the book ‘Nietzsche and Zen’ by a Dutch scholar called André van der braak. It’s a brilliant book in which Nietzsche enters into dialogue with zen thinkers like Nishitani And Dogen. You’ll definitely love it.
Really wonderful interview and fantastic questions. Thank you very much 🙏
The One functions as a diversified unity of Infinite potential Eternally actualizing as a unified diversity or Uni-verse.
43:35 the student came to the master and asked “ master, does the dog have Buddha nature?” , the master replied “woof”.
Thank you ❤
The loss of Paradise for what is paradise but a higher dimension of consciousness. So mans fall out of Paradise is him forgetting his Divine and eternal nature.
In Neil Gaiman's The Ocean At The End Of The Lane, the young protagonist falls into the ocean of universal consciousness, enjoying the bliss of unity and peace and understanding. He is very reluctant to live out his life in this world after such a wonderful experience. His young friend, who guards the border between the two worlds with her family, has to expound to him the wonders of this life that is couched in challenges. If we could, it would serve us very well to squeeze every bit of juice that we can from this life, resting assured that another form of consciousness waits for us around the corner, where the illusion stops and the many become the one.
such great work, thank you
Ok, so I think most people agree that there is something like a premature death. What distinguishes a death of a young person from a death of an 80 year old that didn't achieve their full potential and led generally a miserable life? Is the sad old man's death not premature? What is the criteria that we use in assigning the value of someone's death? What I'm getting at is we are curing diseases because we want to live longer and eliminate most of the suffering. Isn't there a way to argue for longevity tech as enabling the flourishing of everyone's potential while not getting into the trap of what Marry Harrington called - a fully automated luxurious gnosticism? I'm in between here. I see the Moloch of technology and the archetype of the Empire attached to it. I see the dangers, I see what is happening to people because of the corpo driven internet. I don't think we should reject this power though. I think we should strive for virtue while striving for the stars. Save the Earth and explore more. Be sustainable. Live longer, maybe indefinitely. What is the real moral counterargument for immortality other than our limitation in generating resources? Do we die because of the economy?
It is not about freezing the reality. It is about flowing with it in an indefinitely long cycle of rejuvenation in which our core identity survives, strives and flourishes. This question about how to achieve those sustainable cycles of rejuvenation without destruction (death of the individual or war and the collapse of a collective) is the crucial one at our current stage of human development. Those practices that create fear of the eternity seem like a simple coping mechanism. I can imagine more than that.
A person who lives long enough would eventually become a totally different person such that the original person would have effectively “died”. The only way to prevent this is to “freeze” one or more aspects of the original person. So, yes, immortality does require the “freezing of reality” in one form or another.
@@sinisterminister3322 they wouldn't if they put enough attention into keeping what they care about alive. There is no freeze there is only rejuvenation. So my point is to update the notion of eternity in accordance to the rest of the worldview. We need young 100 year olds to be able to tackle what is coming. It takes a lot time to become and adult and the path towards the sage is imho open and can be practiced indifinetely
@@filipo7703 In my experience old age and wisdom seldom have a positive correlation.
@@sinisterminister3322 More often than young age and wisdom. It takes time to figure out being human. Also there is a lot more in what I wrote than that.
🌚☄️❤️💫
4:12
Instead of adopting nihilism, enact Kenosis ? Most bullshit we end up beleiving inevitably makes us full of shit , so the individual self wont get frustrated when it can’t control the very master who filled him, the arena… we are the arena also ? The collective self ?
Nihilism I compare to in mathematics as the null or trivial solution. Sure it’s true but not very useful.
Another framing (of the trivial solution) would be, "Sure, that's a way to answer this problem... but it's not interesting and it's irrelevant to the game we're trying to play here."
26:09 How can you have a narrative without it being a religion? If Vervaeke & Co and are going to write a new mythos then you are founding a new religion. It will be anthropomorphic because you are still anthropos. It sounds like a reworked Abrahamic religion.
There is a fundamental difference
If the brain and body are just matter and there's nothing beyond that then the term "spirituality" is a bit misleading, no?
I was thinking the same thing..
I think 'Western world" is more correct than "the Abrahamic tradition" as Hellenism had a significant influence on rabbinic Judaism and on Christianity, rather than the other way around. Hellenism came first, in other words, and did not come from the Abrahamic traditions. "Western world" would include the Abrahamic traditions. Doesn't work the other way around and so I see "Western world" as more encompassing and historically more correct.
Hellenism was but a minor event in judeic history.
@@moisebenezra Had a profound effect on rabbinic Judaism. Fascinating, actually, for anyone interested in the history of world religion. In any case, your comment does not really relate to my comment.
@@sunburstrose7860 Sure, but it is an event, a moment, in judeic history. It is then taken up into it. Paganism is no more.
@@moisebenezra Again, you are not commenting on the content of my initial comment. And that, "Paganism is no more"? That's debatable and in any case, who cares even if that were true? (lol) I am turning off notifications for your replies as they don't contribute to the conversation and so I won't give a moment's more notice to them.
I responded to your comment, it is accurate to call it the Abrahamic tradition because that is our tradition, whereas Hellenism is one of the societies which had an impact on the Abrahamic tradition but were taken into it.
Also, calling it western is not accurate because it is merely geographical and doesn't express in any way the character of the tradition.
need to make our lives developmental and aesthetic, not stale and stamped identities and plastic crap
N37⭕️
I've always felt that the founders of new ventures in Integral 2nd tier philosophy ultimately have a blind spot. They could just be better Christians but they prefer to be in the pulpit rather than sit in the pew. This has been nagging Jordan Peterson's conscience for many years now. Christianity desperately needs better Christians, Integral people to help save it from the Wokeness that it naively welcomed into its midst. Imo John, just go to church and work from the inside.