Lost Ways of Knowing
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 02. 2020
- Culture is fragmenting into ideological tribes defined by rigid certainty and reductionist thinking. As a result, we're struggling to find new solutions to the significant challenges we face.
What if it's the way we're perceiving that's the problem? Rebel Wisdom's Alexander Beiner has spent the last few months interviewing scientists, facilitators and systems theorists to explore the neuroscience, psychology and history of different ways of knowing, and how we can use them to make sense.
It includes new interviews with John Vervaeke, philosopher Nora Bateson, and jazz theorist Greg Thomas, facilitator Bonnitta Roy and a brand new conversation between Iain McGilchrist and John Vervaeke.
This film accompanies a three part written series which we're releasing on the Rebel Wisdom Medium channel. Chapter 1 is out now and can be found here: bit.ly/2wa2Lsf
You can see some of the people in this film live at the Rebel Wisdom Festival, London, May 30/31 2020: www.rebelwisdom.co.uk/festival
Rebel Wisdom are now running regular Q&As with the interviewees from our films for our members, check out: www.rebelwisdom.co.uk/plans
You can listen to podcast versions of our films on Spotify or Apple Podcasts by searching 'Rebel Wisdom' or download episodes from our Podbean page: rebelwisdom.podbean.com/
We also have a Rebel Wisdom Discord discussion channel: / discord
Thank you so much! This is excellent integrative work. i realize in the first clip that I misspoke. I said we have lost touch with procedural, perspectival, and propositional, when i should have said participatory. I hope this did not cause too much confusion.
Thank you for the correction John. So you are saying ,then, we've lost touch with ONLY participatory knowing, and not the other three?
Rick Kikta I am saying we have lost touch with procedural perspectival and participatory and overemphasized the propositional.
@@johnvervaeke I'm coming from a psychodynamic psychotherapy perspective/language, and love your description of 'reciprocal narrowing' and then 'reciprocal opening' as its 'healing' opposite. It struck me that the concept of reciprocal opening models very nicely onto that of Spiral Dynamics, the symbolic representation of the psychological Developmental model.
@Carl T, I believe John has said elsewhere (Future Thinkers podcast episode?) that he isn’t as familiar with Clare Graves and Spiral Dynamics (or perhaps Ken Wilber and Integral Theory). But I have started to wonder similarly if there isn’t a connection between reciprocal opening and narrowing. It seems that our drive toward the explicit end of the spectrum in the propositional knowing realm is coming to an end. I mentioned elsewhere that we can’t possibly know a puppy by dissecting it into its constituent organs, but we can know something about the abstraction of a puppy. This makes me wonder if what Spiral Dynamics would call second tier (beyond the first six levels) hasn’t been a moving target as we have gone through successive waves of opening and narrowing. For instance, Leonardo da Vinci was really opening into “Orange” but would likely have been second tier compared to his contemporaries. And actually being able to integrate the implicit and explicit in levels 7 and 8 or spiral dynamics will eventually place them in first tier once a sufficient portion of the population is at that level. I wonder.
It's a great conversation and one that obviously has resonated with a large number of people. We've been missing this and it's become salient to us all because we've lost meaning and purpose. Integrating studies of neurology, mythology, philosophy and sensemaking is a brilliant collaboration of West and East that could just end up in finding common ground in our collective humanness.
Throughout Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, but especially the Gumption Chautauqua in chapter 26 are ways and approaches that can help with sensemaking, coherence, the necessity of embracing ambiguity and paradox..all of the above ways of knowing that we need to maneuver the landscape of the information age, so that we may best usher in the post-information age and autonomous AI, hopefully with whatever is beyond Green, which entails none less that a new spiritual rationality. This was the solution for Pirsig 50 years before we were able to see it on this level.
I just discovered through this program that the idea of JAZZ as a metaphor for the serendipitously unexpected is a brilliant way to frame collective consciousness. Just when we think we understand it in the left hemisphere, it collectively jerks us over to the right for that AHA moment and we form a new association. It's genius!
Please keep these conversations coming. I love your work.
Can't wait for the conversation between John Vervaeke and Iain McGilchrist! But all the others sound very promising....!
You are going in the right direction RebelWisdom (at least for me!) by opening towards the "right hemisphere" kind of thinking and processing. A much needed shift!!
I can't either.
@KKB, a much needed shift indeed! And yet, I wonder if the sense of many people is that it was a mistake to give the left brain as much leeway as we have. With the current meaning crisis, it feels like “oh my god, the tyranny of the left brain is going to be the end of us all” but I think this isn’t the case. The left brain almost needs to see the futulity of “solving” the problem once and for all to really reciprochally open to the right brain, which is patiently waiting for the left brain to recognize that it need only ask for help.
Translated to the world, eveyone who feels that we could enact a set of laws to keep us from running off the cliff in a left-brain stampede doesn’t understand that laws are just more acceleration on the speed of the stampede. Perhaps we can get to escape velocity, or perhaps, as Terrance McKenna says, when we truly dive into the void, we’ll find that it is a feather bed.
David Swedlow - yes, I can see how a new set of laws is just a way of accelerating the process into the wrong direction. That is why I personally get suspicious at the mention of "psycho-technologies". It echoes with the "positive psychology movement"- yoga, Tai Chi, affirmations, goal setting, mindfulness meditation, lists of pros and cons etc.... - not that I doubt that these can be useful and helpful tools in certain circumstances, but they are within the same framework of problem solving with the left brain. Sure, meditation or bodywork opens more towards the right hemisphere but I think it has limits. Once you stop doing them, you slip back easily to your usual way of being. Maybe the challenge here is how to integrate these into your life rather than use them and put them down - because they are tools. Am I looking for the integrating "glue" here??
@KKB, I agree with you. If the psycho-technologies are an attempt at curing the dominination of the left hemiphere, I think it may be just a short-term fix that doesn’t last and may have a wicked backlash. But I think there is a way to engage the psycho-technologies that isn’t a by-pass (spiritual, emotional or otherwise). Looking into the heart of my suffering, from multiple angles, with support, can be a pretty effective way to cultivate wisdom over the long term. It isn’t a guarantee that there won’t be pain or failure, but just an increasing sense that I can survive pain and failure, because I have a relationship with the part of myself that transcends the pain and failure. It is important to recognize that transcendence doesn’t cure or fix pain and failure, and transmutes it into something else.
I have been practicing Circling for the past four years. It is the only practice that I engage in regularly in any sort of rigorous way. And what I notice is that the vulnerability of allowing myself to be fully myself has an interesting impact. I start to find that whenever I have an over-attachment to any positive or negative experience (when I feel any sort of compulsion that strains my capacity to exert my will), I find there is a place I can be more compassionate with myself and with others. I can’t say that it occurs for other people the same way it does for me, but my experience is that this is a kind of integrating glue.
"..the "right hemisphere" kind of thinking and processing.."
: thanks for this expession FaithfullKati !!
This video is very timely for me personally as I have been working my way through John’s meaning crisis series and having many of the same thoughts. The ways of knowing has stood out for me mapping the terrain for how we can develop knowing/wisdom - that brings together my professional skills and that which I have gained from spiritual practices. I am glad to see you moving in this direction as I see conversations around things like GameB going around in circles - they are largely stuck in proposition knowing and exploration online. I would also offer that John’s theory on relevance realisation in the mind (which is an dynamic evolutionary process) might be scaled up to collective intelligence - with the techniques mentioned in this video being potential architectures and protocols that enable the nodes in the network (individuals) to self-organise. I think another critical insight that many have already hit on is that no one “node” can be wedded to their opinion/perspective - I.e. must stay in a highly reflective state - so that the collective wisdom can emerge.
If you come from a perspective of unknowing, then you have unlimited potentials to explore
When I forget something, I tell people "I never forgot, so I didn't remember . . . " 😅
@@nicholasmesa3588 should have written it down
Wonderful start! All of these people point to a way in which we can get to know ourselves and the world around us in a deeper way. I especially like the inclusion of the last three speakers since it underlines just how critical a dissenting outlook might be in finding the collective genius we need to get out of the mess we are in.
I agree with the need to express in voice and language to integrate an experience and make room for the next step.
Love the idea that we could recognize the need to match ways of knowing to circumstance.
“If it’s not shifting or moving it’s not alive anymore” (premier system theorist). Obviously, this is a fantastical limbic statement that has zero movement. The problems of recording ego...
Yet again, wonderful work guys. These summaries are golden!
"A liminal way of knowing"...."comfort with chaos"....two great phrases. Thank you. Tomorrow in Framlingham, we're launching an initiative called Appreciation Sunday which is about exploring the relationship between cultural artefacts that have value for us and our wider meaning making.
this is so great, i found this is such a right time. Even that my English level is not enough to understand some complex terms that i am hearing first time - I still gain so much out of it.
I appreciate how you kept independent through the development of your channel
This is really great guys, good work.
A QAnon here.....just letting you know we don't all stick to our tribe lol. My ability to say I'm willing too not know...brought me here. Thank you.
"Without proceeding into the kind of detail possible only in a book, I have done what I could to suggest that behind the immediate controversy about the great books program lies not only the basic cleavage of American culture but a quarrel whose roots are in ancient Greece. Between the speculative dialectician and scientist who says that "the glory of man is to know the truth by my methods," and the eloquent moralist who says that "the bliss of man is good government carried on by copiously eloquent and wise citizens," there need be no conflict. Conflict, however, will inevitably arise between these parties when either attempts to capture the entire education of an age or a country. It would seem to be a matter of distributing time for these studies. The Ciceronian, particularly in a democracy, could reasonably have charge of all education until graduation from college (whether that occurs at eighteen or twenty-one). Intimate association with the scientific spirit, whether inculcated by logic and dialectics or by the physical sciences, can very well afford to be postponed to the stage of graduate study. It would seem, however, that some knowledge of the history of the present dispute would serve to diminish the fog and the passions aroused at present, and would substitute some light for much heat. Of course, no human difficulties ever seem inevitable to the historical gaze. Reasonable inquiry would deprive us of that major distraction from boredom which is invariably sought in hasty accusation and warm rejoinder where both parties raise convenient inconsequence to the level of an intellectual virtue." - The Interior Landscape: The literary Criticism of Marshall McLuhan 1943-1962.
Improvisational clown theatre as the jazz of being, on individual, pair, small and large group levels including leadership and followership. Some keys are;
1. embodied truth that shows up when plans and scripts are suspended - the sovereignty we have already and may not even know about. There’s no hope of fixing up in any way in the naked moment anyway.
2. PLAY gives us a space between our stories and ourselves plus new perspectives, links and insights that sprout, live and direct, from our individual ecology of knowing ourselves. And our attitude towards that from witness.
And 3. Laughter. When we see our own nonsense and that of others in a deep-light-together way we can’t help but laugh from the wide open heart of recognition.
@@VahnAeris playing with your unique perspective
This was great, thank you. Ken Wilber's A Brief History of Everything came to mind whilst listening.
What are the different ways of knowing? Everything a subject (e.g. a human being) knows is subjective knowing. Their senses, their mental processing of it, their personal biology. What you are calling "propositional knowing" is still not other than subjective knowing, however there is the notion that there are regularities in nature that can be labelled in ways that are static enough to map to an "external world". So there is only one way of knowing, and it is subjectively and personally. "We" cannot know something, but various people can agree, by comparing notes, about various apparent regularities in nature. So there is only one way of knowing. This knowing can be based on various things, including our own senses, our own mental processes, our own feelings, our own intuition, etc.. These could be called different kinds of knowing (might be called "empirical", "mental", "somatic", and "spiritual"). It is not so much that "humans are good at empirical knowing", but this type is the easiest to prove to others due to the regularities. So a kind of higher certainty is available in empiricism _regarding language and communication of it_ that is not as much so with the other kinds.
How do we access them? Empirical knowing is accessed through physical experiments. Mental knowing is accessed through cultivating critical thinking and skepticism e.g. serious study of philosophy. Somatic knowing is cultivated through practices like Yoga, Tai Chi, exercise in general, and various inner practices like meditation to some extent. Spiritual knowing is accessed through spiritual cultivation. What this is, exactly, I cannot explain as each person must find this out on their own. I can say it is the most important, it is the most subjective, and it is the most personal form of knowing... also the only one that can really provide meaning and happiness.
How do they add value? I'm with you that the empirically based knowing, due to the enlightenment, has become overemphasized (especially in the West, and we should not forget that our Western perspective is not ubiquitous). So, I'm with you that the mental, somatic, and spiritual kinds of knowing could help many people to balance the empirical. Specifically, empiricism is _not_ where meaning is found (see Hume's is/ought dichotomy). So trying to find something where it isn't will be very frustrating.
How do we bring them together? This is the easiest question. When you cultivate all of them, and _focus on one's own cultivation rather than on what others are or are not doing,_ then they all come together in balance. It is the neglect of one or another of the types of knowing that will certainly cause imbalance and lead to frustration.
In short, the only solution is the personal path of cultivation. There is no "we" solution except the "we" that is in fact cultivating and, ideally, sharing their notes about this with others interested in it.
Please, A) deploy "Your" listening abilities, learn how to discriminate layers of sound and fields of pitches or harmony, learn to subdivide time into polyrithmic subdivisions in multiple layers of space-Time or Form ....
Next, B) find a way to perform "spontaneous compositions" coherent and memorable soundd space-Time field architectures ... and try to make those sound structures to work as integrative elements for connecting more layers of sound ...
Next, Don't perform anything at All ... Listen in Absolute Silence ... JUST LISTEN , DON'T THINK ...
Wait up other human realize A & B ...
React and let the body to add the adequate "Sound Layer" ...
If Your body can adapt to that environment ...
Read again your comment and spot:
How Ignorance of Procedural Knowledge affects Nominal Knowledge?
And the beauty is: we don't have to choose one and only one way of knowing or thinking -- we can hold all of the above, and mix and match and INTEGRATE depending on the circumstances. We can hold different ways of thinking about time, from linear to cyclical. We can hold John Vervaeke's different ways of knowing, from propositional to participatory. We can hold traditional and modern ways of thinking about health and the body. In other words, we can use our consciousness in our service. Because this isn’t just about seeing reality clearly, it’s also about seeing reality *skillfully* :)
Great Work! Rebel Wisdom is a cornucopia of metacognitive food for thought.
You are what you do, not what you say you'll do. “In each of us there is another whom we do not know.”
Every human life contains a potential, if that potential is not fulfilled, then that life was wasted...”Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darknesses of other people.”
Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge
Thank you for the great fusion of perspectives. So refreshing to hear you acknowledge the value of integration.
Nora Batesman..."what we think of as 'authorized' information"... Well put. Yet Greg Thomas speaks of common ground that underlies any group creation. Is that not another expression of the same thing? One in the narrative space, the other in the liminal space.
What is that ground in the liminal space? How do we navigate in that space? In the jazz setting we have that common ground going in, but what of unknown territory?
I think it is tied to our instinct for safety. We can sense clearly when there is danger or evil, or when there is good and safety. We all know this in our first impressions of people we meet, before they even say a word, and regardless if they have a common narrative with us.
But part of what we have done in the narrative space is codified this in a short-hand connected to ideas that we have experienced in the past whether personally or through collective experience. So then there arises a cognitive dissonance when we hear some large idea such as "communism" or "collectivism" promoted in terms of love and equality and safety when we can feel the death of millions in the name of that narrative.
Which all goes to say, what is missing in this discussion is that age-old discussion of good and evil. Without a serious discussion, I think, there will always be great danger in the narrative space that attempts to rationalize it away, or claim to eliminate the problem with some new grand narrative, even if initially grounded in some need for safety for some or even many.
If we wish to understand this more intimately, we can do this thought experiment. Imagine for a moment having some great personal power, ability above and beyond that of the average human being. Something magical. Before the "ought" narratives kick in, what were the immediate thoughts that came to mind about what you could do with that power?
Welcome to the problem of good and evil. As Jordan Peterson regularly points out, we know it because we know it in ourselves. That is the most essential part we miss when we spend all of our time in the cognitive left brain space.
It depends "The Power" ...
For Example, To Flight is not The Same that To Shut down The Sun ...
You can fly and The consequences will be different that Shutting down The Sun.
Love this! Thank you.
Excellent content, amazing subject...I would like to hear your perspective on the Pineal gland in the respect of helping one to become more enlightened, also what one can do to clear your Pineal gland, through diet and the absence of fluoride... and also about being an artist and 'loosing' your ego while creating abstract art in multiple mediums...and how that better effects our health in the long term. Thanx again, great video(s) and I am sharing them all with friends and family
I would like to put this public invitation out there to anyone who's interested in having a live conversation about this video to further digest it! Any takers?
hi
great work!
These guys’ space bubbles are so small.
The proximity of their knees makes me feel weird.
Solid content, though. Keep up the good work guys.
Ha! I thought the same… I probably says more about me and my need for my space, on my terms.
Thank you for all your work
I have listened to the hole video and have no clue what they are talking about.. .please could someone simplify this for me please?.
Cool Channel I LOVE THE CONTENT, It's very helpful.
I love the jazz idea!
At 12:04 - 12:14, I immediately thought of your wonderful conversation with John Vervaeke!
Can someone finish the analogy of knowing gold is a mineral but that is not enough, that mental map.
What other types of knowledge are there about gold that we should be including in our map?
Excellent synthesis work here gents
Thanks .
This is so fantastic. Honestly makes me wonder how I get through the rest of the crap in my life to focus on this and grow.
@30:00 reminds me of Alan Watts' bit on gooey pickles and prickly goo 😄
It is a really important point that we don't bury the engineers in our rush to revivify embodied knowing. We will need them to enter collectively into that liminal space and create something truly genius. I think the trick will be how we seduce them into dropping their certainty. That won't be easy.
Chaos Explorer
Would you want to fly in an aircraft where the engineers had "dropped their certainty?
@@ainternet239 A Internet, you have a point. When I think about it there is something that feels uneasy in my body. Certainty does put me at ease in some situations. But I have had experiences with 2 back operations 10 years apart that changed my perspective. The first surgeon was very confident and did a sub par job. The second surgeon used much more careful language and it took me a while to sign off on that operation. But the results were excellent. It feels like we are just too used to bullshitthing ourselves and tend to forget that throughout all the history of humanity everything we have been certain of has been wrong or incomplete.
@@ainternet239 I was an aircraft technician for over twenty years and worked with many pilots and engineers. I have gained a lot of respect for the engineers who could say I don't know or tell you that their level of confidence was qualified by some uncertainty. The one guy who was the best I ever worked with would invite input and was very comfortable in uncertainty and would sometimes publicly work it out before giving his decision. On the other hand the not so confident ones would hide behind their qualifications and look down on the technicians but we could see right through them.
@@ainternet239 Another thing to keep in mind A Internet is that the shuttle Columbia disaster was a result of groupthink certainty even though one of the engineers had some well founded uncertainty about the ability of an o ring to maintain its integrity in cold temperatures.
@Chaos Explorer, I think you bring up a very good point worth considering. Certainty doesn’t necessitate correctness, and can actually blind one to the aspects of the unknown that are worth investigating. Someone did a TED talk a while back on the “feeling of being wrong” in which she asked what it feels like to “be wrong,” and surprisingly, the answer is, it feels like being right! Once you realize you are wrong, the feelings that arise upon that realization can vary quite a bit, but you are no longer in the state of believing that you are right. Josh Waitzkin points this out in a very powerful story in his book “The Art of Learning” in which a auto-pedestrian accident that he witnessed on the way to teaching a chess lesson provided his students with an invaluable lesson: “when something surprising happens that doesn’t fit your narrative of what is happening, assume your narrative is wrong and start to reconstruct it from first principles to assess where you actually are.”
One great way to involve oneself in learning in the space if complex systems and embodiment is horse training, dressage specifically. Although the equestrian world is generally out of sync with this Way, I hope that communities involved in practicing and transmitting the wisdom of the living system that shifts and changes, responds, lets go of control, finding comfort in chaos, etc can find the value of this practice.
The deeper I go, the more I see how on the money you guys are. 🙏
excellent video
great conversation, thanks. i am not a neurologist nor a psychologist, merely an interested dabbler, but my understanding is that recently the "left-right" model has been discredited if not outright refuted by advancements in realtime brain imaging. it may remain useful as a metaphor for typology and personal strategies, but is not supported by the best observation of biology.
Fucking amazing piece. Love the way you put this together bravo
1,000th like! I won the amazing knowledge in this video!🎉
Sit closer, lads.
Thank you for this engaging conversation. At time 28:25, I think Greg Thomas said the name Otto Chalmers, is that correct? I know of Oswald Chalmers, and David Chalmers, but not Otto. I did a brief internet search of the name Otto Chalmers and "Theory You" (?), but nothing was revealed. Is there a person named Otto Chalmers who has written about "generative listening" and "Theory You"? Or am I misunderstanding? Thank you.
Prob Otto schamer if it is in regard to levels of listening
...generative listening it tough ... it is like a meditative calm mind state
Keep up the great work, Rebel Wisdom. This is invaluable. Ways of knowing has been one my personal areas of exploration, both practically and academically, and this encourages me to keep going with it.
Interesting...
absolutely so
reality or model
who can truly know?
"Losts ways of knowing......Culture is Fragmenting" There is only one true way to think. It was so much better when we only had one "faith-based" state-church ideological tribe, or you get crusaded, inquisited or burned at the stake. Logic, Rationality and morality are not fundamental, they don't actually exsist. The biggest problem with the world is white men thinking and religion(like me) If you want to know about embodied-cognition. Look up the history of the most prevelant psychological disorder since socrates that suddenly dissappered. The history of hysteria and the vibrator. Theres a hollywood flick called "Hysteria"............... @9:57 WOC&R Double-Bind Systems-Theory:
@9:57 Double-Bind Systems-Theory Gregory Bateson did what is still the best study to this day on, Schizophrenia and the family. Thats when he coined the term Double Bind. The church-state-capitalism/marketing human-farming industrial complex creates the schizophrenic family/mother. Most of us are trapped in these double binds. Book: Shamans Among Us: Schizophrenia/Bipolar and the Evolutionary Origins of Religion.
We naturally know via the easiest to transmit way of knowing because propositional knowledge is so plentiful.
These other ways of knowing feel more clumsy when transmitted.
It has to be converted into propositional knowing to communicate it then it feels it becomes less than it was.
Propositions utilise reference data commonality in how we've defined words to mean things, we don't have to explain each time.
That referential commonality is attuned for how we currently understand.
It feels an art to try and rewrite how we interpret words, like poetry.
I also happen to think in engineering language or rules for things. I have to make models for how people speak. How I should respond. ect. But I can't calculate fast enough in person so I don't speak. I don't pass the point of feeling what I'm saying is right enough to speak assuredly. I noticed my previous paragraph, was avoidance and so now I'm sabotaging myself with a contradiction, in that I'm probably trying to avoid the participatory knowing by changing the sense-making, rather than a more direct path.
@Chris Hodgson, I suspect that you have an incerdible and unique perspective which allows you to solve problems in a way that most other people can’t even imagine. If you haven’t read Iain McGilchrist’s book “The Master and his Emissary” mentioned in this video, I highly recommend it. I’m halfway through and it has provided incredible insights into the way that coherent thought between the right and left hemispheres can result in much more robust and clear-headed thinking in the long run. You might also enjoy the book “Leonardo’s Brain” by Leonard Shlain, a neurosurgeon who also wrote quite insightfully about hemispheric differentiation and integration. Lastly, I recommend the recent interview on the Lex Fridman channel with chip designer Jim Keller. His perspective on design and engineering I am certain would be fascinating to you and many who watch this channel.
@@dls78731 Thank you, David. I have read Iain's book. It had great insights, underpinning the perspectival knowing element to our lives in an integrated fashion I didn't know was possible to communicate. The long-term tendency towards comfort over excitement in late civilisations, leading to more left-brain thinking against the dynamism of the right hemisphere was interesting. I appreciate how different people see the world, yet on a personal level, I stopped short of immersion myself.
I have dyspraxia which symptomatically is body co-ordination difficulties, eg. falling over oneself which you would no longer notice.
However, trying to describe it internally it feels as if the sweet spot of things feeling natural is less apparent. I was unable to copy the behaviour of others, without approximations\inference that apparently was not anticipated. This attractor of naturality, therefore, doesn't pull me in so easily, or the conclusions I reach can confuse others in how I avoid pitfalls or miss opportunities I'm expected to hit within the dynamics of a conversation. The result is the social conditions for right-brain thinking do not quite align to drive me forward excitedly. This manifests as social anxiety but can be at a low level.
Disability is a lee-way explanation which is convenient to externalise my deviations that are hard to understand. I am not satisfied with that though. I could on top of this place the INTJ Myers-Briggs personality type to provide an explanation for that dissatisfaction and need to explain myself more distinctly.
Both Jim Keller (who I watched and enjoyed. thanks for the recommendation) rewriting his code and Iain's gestalt nature of things that morph into different things point to when concepts break and awareness of their failure remains hidden. Labels are used to explain things and yet over time they over define things that were meant to be approximations, and so our understanding gets lost.
We could report publicly on precisely how everything works to self-correct ourselves, but that'll destroy how inter-company competition currently works (if done honestly). There are structural challenges to be that open, but to me, it seems the right-brain (correcting) path from where we are. The risk distribution mechanisms in today's world require knowledge of many things, to define something fully, so it will be a hard task to report honestly, but like the code rewrite, much of that complexity will not be needed once we define it.
I have not read Leonardo's brain. Maybe I will, but I didn't feel I needed more hemisphere knowledge than Master and his Emissary. Is it sufficiently different?
Chris Hodgson, thank you for the deep reflection and insight. Your description of dyspraxia makes me wonder if I don’t have something akin or perhaps a distant cousin. Jordan Hall has said in some discussions that he can tell the people who never quite seem to find their tribe because of the way that they never completely lose the beat of their own drum, even if that seems a bit akward to everyone else. Your description makes me think of the changing and morphing maps that are only approximations (differently stable over changing time periods), as if the topological maps are describing the shapes of the waves in an ocean. Over a very short period of time, yes, the relative relationships between peaks is valid, but at the time scale we are used to, those relationships only last a moment or perhaps two. In geologic time, the genome is likewise snaking all over the place, and yet, though the fixed relationships are always in flux, there are holographic patterns that seem to persist across deep time.
In Leonardo’s Brain, the thesis is more about how few people get to the point of using the hemispheres in full concert in a very synergistic way, and Leonardo da Vinci is one person who seems to have done so. It is not nearly as academic nor research based book as it is a speculative exploration of a different and rare way of perceiving. Some portion of those who would deeply enjoy McGilchrist would probably be quite irritated by the lack of scientific rigor in this book, but I enjoyed it quite a bit and it has informed some of my insights.
Leonard Shlain’s other books also deal with hemispheric differences in some ways: Art and Physics looks at the way that artists and scientists have similar shifts in major perspectives in a synchronized way, and The Goddess and the Alphabet talks about much of the civilizational shift to left brain thinking that accompanies alphabetic writing and literacy, which gave rise to a masculine theology of monotheism.
@@dls78731 Thanks. Glad you appreciated my reply. Replying to book recommendations by defining my existence, isn't always a good call.
In a way personality is the ways we're different from each other that we are meant to understand, and disabilities are ways in which we're not meant to not understand but need sympathy for. I think describing my disability broadly, was enough to be relatable to aspects of how some personalities work and connect. Relatability under different labels is still worthwhile.
Jordon Hall is fascinating in his social effectiveness while retaining skills he can only have come up with himself. I didn't know off-beat personalities could be that externally integrated till I saw him. I have only beat my drum in youtube comments sections though. A high potential gap to playing out my being in reality. :/
I agree there are many different timescales of patterns. Seeing outside the standard frame is useful. Our human reward system doesn't accommodate that so well though. There is no redesign option open to many for that which has lasted longer than themselves. It seems immortal to them at their first glance.
Leanard does sound interesting. Thanks for the recommendation. I read slow, so I need to be selective with my books/topics.
Chris, I too think in engineering models, as I spent almost two decades in that field. I also grew up with a speech impediment, largely because I never felt that what I was about to say was understandable enough to express. I now have a second career working with my patients at the levels below propositional knowing.
All of that is by-the-by but is mentioned in response to your comment that the other ways of knowing feel clumsy when transmitted…
If we practice Transmitting the other ways of knowing as much as we daily practice our propositional/semantic knowing, they become no longer clumsy. For the many people , Braille is merely lumps and bumps on a piece of paper, but to the trained hand it can be Shakespeare. (Not the best analogy, because it’s still using words, but you get my point).
Vervaeke, talks about using daily embodied practice for enhancing the different ways of knowing on his CZcams channel. There seems a non linear relationship between embodied practice and the clarity from coordinating our ‘ways of knowing’, but it seems to be helpful.
This is about _learning_
I thought this was going to be about intuition , _knowing_ is intuition :
Let him with ears have hearing
Let him with eyes have sight
Let him with intuition _know_
according to his light.
Another proposition to choose from might broaden ones perspectives.
Wisdom for sale again! :)
While I understand the rationale that many different mindsets and perspectives can lead to much richer, complex, comprehensive understanding, in any group setting there is always the possibility of groupthink or group narcissism. How to counter human nature in social settings?
Spiral Dynamics (and people with a sophisticated critique of it).
It is becoming clear to all that the next shift or paradigm will be brought about by participatory dialogue. It is no coincidence that the Hebrew word for 'dialogue' שיח appears in the word 'messiah' משיח. We are destined together to work our way carefully through the world of illusions, and to distinguish between the main crucial issues and the trivial things.
i was waiting for someone to mention Wilhelm Reich !
Since the human brain is wired to try to make sense of things out of context and experience, etc., why, then does it not make sense that most are uncomfortable with chaos?
It is amazing to me that I can access content such as this - for free. Whatever this part of the “web” is (i.e., intellectual dark/deep web) it certainly isn’t boring😀
‘Taxonomies are not true or false’
Well technically, taxonomies are nothing but a collection of logical statements, each of which can be evaluated to true or false. The statements are things like ‘mammals are a subclass of animals’, adapted for the domain of interest of course.
I have a PhD in Semantic web and I’m on the ISO committee for AI, so I am confident about that :-)
I think what John means is that there is no one single correct way of creating a taxonomy. It can be done in multiple ways which are equally valid and the important thing is to choose one that has utility for intended purpose. They can generally co-exist just fine, they are simply different ways of slicing up the semantic space, possibly using different variables and possibly using different values of those variables, or both :-)
Perspectival knowing is the one that interfaces most strongly with underlying paradigms maybe? But I'm not sure what emphasis if any John places on paradigms....Participatory knowing sounds the most Barfieldian to me.
One cannot understand, that which one thinks that they already know...
Really interesting talk, thanks for that. However I really missed a critical starting point: defining 'knowledge'. I wondered if they already started from the point that knowledge is 'justified true belief' (Gettier cases aside, of course). Otherwise, we can't even tell if this or that 'way of knowing' is effectively a way of 'knowing', because we don't know what we are defining as 'knowledge' (for the sake of this argument at least). It'd be really interesting to explore how this 'ways of knowing' fit a definition of 'knowledge' and thus have a right to be called 'ways of knowing' and not something else like 'ways of acting or feeling unknowingly'.
@Sebastian Quezada, the ways of knowing are quite distinct from “knowledge” as John Vervaeke says, knowledge focuses on the propositional product: I recommend searching CZcams for “The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7” which is very distinct from the ways of knowing.
@@dls78731 I've watched that video several times, but my argument is that they shouldn't be called ways of 'knowing' if they are not about 'knowledge'. If a 'way of knowing' is not a way of obtaining and/or having 'knowledge' of something, it's simply semantically inconsistent in my opinion.
@Sebastian Quezada, Ah, I think I see. When I say distinct, I am really pointing to the mode of experience. Knowledge (having mode, conclusions and propositions), is in the realm of the fruit of knowing (being mode, in experience, informed by but not limited by knowledge, prior maps which may mark the spot where gold is, but which also may no longer be current). The Being Mode is quite distinct from the Having Mode, though they are clearly related. The left hemisphere wants the certainty of a reality that doesn’t change (which is only possible on a map, and which may no longer represent the reality that it is attempting to depict because reality is dynamic, and the process of mapping actually changes the territory).
I am not making the claim that Being Mode always trumps Having Mode! They work best when they work together, but the Having Mode left brain in our current physiology and psychology is very “grabby” and once it believes it has a lock on the Truth, it no longer wants to listen to the Being Mode right brain. (Modes should also probably not be wholly equated with brain hemispheres, which again would be a Having Mode mapping).
Isn't the dominance of dialectical thinking what we've been experiencing since the advent of the printing press, and predominantly left-brain oriented visually-biased take on the world (and thus, precisely the weighting that McGilchrist is warning us away from)? Also, what does the instantaneous formulation of narrative as a perceptual bridging of time do to our mentality? Seems to me it would essentially mythologize *everything*. So the only role left for archetypes is as probes through the tactile veil.
I’d really like to get a degree in counseling through any of these people.
The way to learn how to do something right is to do it wrong 100 times. Early educational rote teaching has virtue and that is no longer taught because of muh feelings.
If the concern is about feelings getting hurt, that is largely dependant upon the child's expectations (that they've inferred from their environment). If a child is given the mistaken impression that they should get something right the first time, they're going to be devastated if they fail ten times. If you tell a child they're probably going to fail a hundred times before they get it right, the stress is going to be far more proportionate. I wonder if it might be the case that we often fail to define realistic expectations because we'd rather just ignore that potentially uncomfortable subject - perhaps because if you say it will probably take you a hundred times to get it right, and one kid takes two hundred times to get it right, we're worried about how that one kid will feel
@@tommeakin1732 The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.
--Thomas Sowell
I would love for you guys to make the connection between all of this and the war between the sexes. The different ways of knowing have their homes in the masculine and feminine. And just as some of the interviewees pointed out, the solution is for them to work together--not dominate the other.
Brilliant observation, I would like to hear this conversation as well.
@@brandongillett7514 well, I just made a video that gets into it a bit!
czcams.com/video/CeVRz6Gi5iI/video.html
Like most wars, ‘the war between the sexes’ is largely a manufactured racket, exaggerated and inflamed by those who wish to use it to forward their own agendas and to improve their own ends. When we become adept at overcoming our own internal battles, war, at the coal face of honest healthy human interaction, needn’t exist… And for the most part it really doesn’t.
Just like Vervaekes model where we have let our propositional knowing run amok serving itself and keeping itself in a gig, we also tend to let our ‘priest class’ of politicians/academic ‘experts’ run amok for the sole purpose of keeping themselves in a gig.
I was hoping that Intuitive knowing would have been included in the list. Does Vervaeke include that in one of the four categories? is it glaring to anyone else that it seems to be missing? To me it is the most feminine form of knowing and the most frequently dismissed/ignored form of knowing especially in our very left brain, proposition/procedural world. I wish I could ask John Vervaeke about this.
My understanding is that ‘intuition’ is included in all three of the non-propositional knowing, and those three less conscious ways of know are what forms ‘intuition’. It’s not missing at all, and propositional knowing really can’t exist without them… John has put a lot of stuff out on CZcams.
Excelent compendium, as usual.
It’s a curious paradox that the conversation about embodied ways of knowing is so acute in its use of jargon that FEELS like the extreme opposite of embodied ways of knowing.
If Rebel Wisdom’s target audience are the people who enjoy the most un-embodied abstracted language, and the mission is to focus on explaining to those people why embodied ways of knowing are valuable, then your communication style is perfect.
If you want to communicate with people who are already on the path of embodied knowledge I would like to politely suggest that the use of language, while it may be precise, is too abstract and coming from the exact form of knowing you’re trying to encourage people to go beyond.
I want to share rebel wisdom content more, but i often choose not too because the jargon and level of abstraction makes the learning curve too steep.
A helpful thing for the presenters to consider is the old saying, often attributed to Einstein ‘if you can’t explain it simply, you haven’t really understood it’.
I would share RW content far more often if it was pitched at a broader market, where RW meets the audience close to where they are at so the jump to a new way of knowing isn’t to great and they will bother to make the effort to take the leap.
That is a good idea Jonathan. I agree with you that the ideas need to be made more accessible. However it seems to me that Rebel Wisdom is running flat out just trying to gather the best experts and get them talking so that we can benefit from their collective emergent ideas. It may be that its up to people like you and me to glean what we can from these podcasts and create a new way to bring it to a wider audience. Do you have any suggestions on how we could do that?
@@chaosexplorer9672 @Jonathan Davis
I am willing to have a video chat conversation with anyone out there to actively digest this 38min together live, and then resynthesize it to something even more accessible.
If anyone is interested in this public invitation, please let me know and we can get started in whatever way fits best!
@@tttony Hi Tony, thanks for jumping on this. Yes I would be willing to give it a try. I have some background in training design but I am a neophyte on CZcams.
Chaos Explorer i’ve been working on a project for the past 18 months. We’re adding a Futures section to our new online magazine, so i will be certainly doing that.
@@JonathanDavisKookaburra Hi Jonathan that is very exciting. I have thought about something similar but I have been doing a lot of inner work trying to "Clean my room" so to speak so that I do not bring any unnecessary resentments onto a platform that allows me to reach a lot of people. I do feel like the time is right for me to get involved in something like that as well. I guess a better way of saying it would be that it feels like the world and I are unfolding in a way for me get involved organically at several different levels. I have written a few manuscripts and articles that I sent out query letters for. I would love to hear more about your project. Do you foresee it centering on similar subject matter as Rebel Wisdom?
I think the reframing work we discussed is essential but I would also like to know how people all around the globe are dealing with some of these issues on a practical day to day level. What have people tried that is working? What are people contemplating but are not quite able to verbalize? Is it emerging in art? Are there commonalities?
I am very encouraged by the thoughtful writing I see in these comments but I also have the sense that it is now time for us to facilitate some other spaces that by themselves would act as catalysts for the emergence of a fertile, benevolent collective intelligence.
The only way to know it to be
I feel you have moved into the right direction in the last couple of episode's, due to your language it has hindered your viewing figures. You could try and bring in other groups with different methods....For example the skatepark has been using the circling techniques you talk of through individual meditation since the 80's, ther are many different activities and ways people find what you speak off.... you just need to reel them in. Keep fighting on, you may just find what we are looking. for .
they are sitting very close together
rush recorded an album related to this topic called 'hemispheres' czcams.com/video/7uXCfDRddC0/video.html
i would recommend checking out the lyrics of course but keep in mind its prog rock so its more like a short novel :D
I guess the Socratic question here is What is Knowing? if it has, say, 4 different types, what is it that they all have in common, by which we wish to call them all 'kinds of Knowing'?
So just to take a stab at it in basic terms I'll go with 'knowing' as being fittedness with the environment and the 'commonality' as being the tiers of brain function with a crude mapping of the 4 Ps onto pre-frontal, limbic, sensory and motor.
@@myksha1 so to know something X is to be fitted with the environment of X in some sense ? Or to to be fitted with X?... seems unclear... if you could elaborate pls?...
@@myksha1 what i mean by the Commonality in the definition of Knowing is: - consider the parallel definition of 'Shape' - there are a number of types of shapes, - circles, squares, triangles etc but the definition of 'shape" would have to cover all these cases...what all the particular kinds of shapes have in common would be a key part of the general definition of 'shape'. In the same way, what is the definition of Knowing that includes all the particular kinds of Knowing...?
... but what were you saying about brain mapping etc? As that sounds interesting but need more context pls...
Knowledge is a Multidimensional Topology in Truth's Space.
The latter. Fitted with X where X is the environment. Identifying 'something' as being within the context of the environment would be a Perspectival process and the subsequent CZcams discussion conducted in Propositional terms. As a punt I would say that it may get vague and messy because the 4Ps are likely to be nested or at least 'Venned' rather than discrete as with the brain structure analogy.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
1:00 olofmeister
any left handers/cross dominants feeling good about themselves? XD
Why could Rome not take over Ireland?
My suggestion: Start by understanding the false rather than chasing the seemingly true.
@Space Monkey An inexperienced blind man must bump into a few walls to be aware they are there.
Lads you should consider Lawrence vander post. Jung did not communicate reincarnation with him. Prince Charles was given a wrong direction. Not prince Charles fault. And he could make a good king
It seems tirelessly absurd, rendering 'being' down to a collection of inadequate and exceptional linguistic constructions. Someone here needs to take psychedelics ....
Socrates was right all along. Only thing I know is that I know nothing.
...it is a bit like saying the one constant is that everything is always changing...
Im 10 mins in and finding this subject annoying.
The 4 types of knowledge already have names.
Knowledge, awareness, perspective and skills.
Exactly what are you arguing against? That the latter three should be seen as types of knowledge?
What makes you think we rely less on skills? Technology? But surely interfacing is a skill, god knows i am poorly skilled at typing on a phone.
Trying to rename typing from a skill to a sub catagory of knowledge is helping with what problem?
What that lady said finishing at 14:14 is the biggest load of nonsense.
Who is making high level decisions without considering context? Such a straw man.
Ok thats it. Im 22 mins in and this guy is talking such abstract nonsense. Who is actaully so base as to behave in the way this guy seems to be saying we are all like.
Its like the r/showerthoughts shat a thesaurus.
@GDKLockout, It is interesting, you seem to be saying that this is all bullshit because it is so obvious that we shouldn’t even be talking about it, much less making it such a big deal that there is a conference in May dedicated to the further exploration of these ideas. So it isn’t that you disagree, but that you think it is vacuous, is that right?
It is an interesting perspective, and it makes me curious about who you think actually says worthwhile stuff? Which authors would you recommend? I’m truly asking. For example, “The Art of Learning” by Josh Waitzkin covers ground that I would argue overlaps this, but he is a chess grandmaster, a push-hands world champion, and is now foil-surfing of the coast of Costa Rica. He is applying these insights to huge impact. To me these insights don’t seem obvious (yes, on the surface, but when you really get down into the nitty gritty, there was much that was oversimplified in the abstract.
I imagine that there isn’t much on the Rebel Wisdom channel that intrigues you based on your response here, but I may be wrong.
@@dls78731
Im very disappointed. The argument from authority wrapped i to a wierd condesention about the rest od the channel.
Unlike these pretentious thinkers, i was quite direct in my criticism. If you care to address it?
The idea he is making word salad out of is a pointless attempt to re-catagorise Knowledge, Skill, Awareness and Perception into 4 types of knowledge, then he declares we the ignorant masses dont know this and favor knowledge, but not him/her, oh no, they are Profound!!!
Absolutely pointless.
Edit: im not saying it obvious and so shouldnt be spoken about, im criticising the attempt to play with words trying to sound profound. In reality what they are saying is we need to consider context for decision making.....well fucking duuuuuh!!!!!
@GDKLockout, funny comment about “argument from authority,” perhaps there is something of my tone betrays an irratiation that seeps into my post, but I’m so utterly done with authority from above. I get the message of your frustration with much of this video - if that isn’t the case, and it may not be, I’m surprised at my capacity for projection. I also find myself being subtley annoyed with this video, mostly at Alexander and David, and I can’t quite put my finger on what tweaks me. It does feel like a kind of pretension wrapped up on dorm-room snippets of profound conversations, but I am so grateful for Nora’s vision on context, and for Vervaeke’s ways of knowing. So I’m really not criticizing you, but trying to get a better sense of the other polar extreme to your ire. I’ve also bought tickets to the May event and I’m looking forward to it, but wondering if I should bring extra antacid. It starts to feel like a Propositional extrapolation on the nuance that I was starting to cherish.
The essence of the distinctions that I care about here have to do with Being Mode and Having Mode. One “has” knowledge, skill,awareness and perception, but the Being Mode is the living self-authorized surfing on the present moment rather than the post-digestive fossilized scat of old philosophers. These days most people use the word context, and I want to rip their tongues out! How dare they blaspheme the divine by trying to put it in a pretty box. Okay, that was certainly overly dramatic for effect, but the contextS (plural) that Nora is talking about are nearly completely absent from education, science, business, medicine, etc.
One may say, yes, certainly, these “objects” we call people are “in relationship” to one another, well, fucking duh! But look more closely, what is actually being said is something more like, these relationships can also be seen as the primary dynamic of interest, and the apparent nodes that we call people are more like arising epiphenomena the this turbulent sea of fluctuating electrons. Both perspectives provide clarity and insight, and neither should trump the other forever. That is the kind of context I’m hearing.
The thing trying to be said through me is not easy to convey! So I’m trying with more words. The dead trinkets of past experience that I call “skill” and “perspective” and “knowledge” are essential as bricks in the foundation of my being, so I don’t want to throw those out, but I also don’t want to hold those up as the living idols of the actual experiences available in this moment. And I know that each one of the potentially 8 billion of you living out there in this moment may have your own unique way of assembling the elements of this experience. I want to connect with that more than try to convince you that this frame is “the right one.”
every dude on this channel sounds like and American that has spent too much time in the UK or viceversa. The Simon Sinek accent.
haha true!
In my experience, people who talk about "lost ways of knowing" weren't smart enough to study a STEM subject at college.
They're the ones mumbling about "bringing things into the conversation"