The One in the many and the many in the One is the Holy Trinity, also the very meaning of the word Universe (hence no need for a many worlds theory), and the fundamental aspect of reality, as in even an Atom is made of three parts (proton, neutron, electron) and of those parts the proton, meaning the first, is also made of three quarks, thus one can say the Atom is made in the image of the Proton, so to speak. Now if only we understood the difference between Classical physics (the Macro world) and Quantum Mechanics (the Micro world) as in that Classical Physics being of the Past, thus motion of the laws that can be observed of what actually happened (as in the past of what the wavelength collapsed into observable matter) and Quantum Mechanics as being of the Future and our attempt to peek into that Future, the wavelength of all our future potential and possibilities, the smallest part of our Cosmos being what falls first (fallen world) into the future of the uncreated Light of Being from which the World emerges. Telosbound, think this over with individual free Will ( good Will vs ill Will) as the center and perhaps this too can be an aspect of Communal Ontology. Either way, bravo and be blessed in having your message reach the many who need it.
Atheism ironically requires faith too, because they can’t prove with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist. You have to take a leap of faith to deny with confidence the existence of God.
Great video! It’s amazing to think about these things. I’m sort of tripped out about the fact that self relation is irrational because it’s logically impossible for it be rational. Also amazing how our use of thought is impossible to be self referentially verified and yet it’s the capacity to think that allows us to understand this, which is also rooted in God. Maybe I’m getting stuck in thinking about how to validate rationality self referentially but why is it that we have this access to knowledge of inherently irrational actions like sin? There’s objectively nothing truly beneficial to sin or the knowledge thereof it seems. Except maybe just for the fact that it makes our decision to participate in being not entirely forced. It seems like in so much as we participate in being it’s impossible to actually be inclined toward anything other than God though and it’s also logically impossible for that to be a bad thing because desire and goodness both are rooted in God. As I go on thinking, Trying to rationalize self referential existence seems to be to try to rationalize the inherently irrational. I can’t understand the appeal of Hell lol and yet it’s impossible for me to have come to any other conclusion it seems. Sorry for the length
Much new concepts for me, rounding up my PhD right now so much of the definitions made sense on its own but it’s much different when in relation to the concept of God. I am amazed and intrigued that although being Christian, I did not think to apply ontological study in this way. Keep on the good work!
Faith isn't blind or something that people just think is true without evidence. Faith is trust. Accepting something as true with confidence. We don't just think Jesus rose from the dead but aren't sure we have trust in going to heaven if he actually did rise from the dead
Your arguments here regarding doubt remind me very much of Sextus Empiricus - and the Pyrrhonian Skeptics approach generally - against what he calls the Academic Skeptics - who held such a position of doubt. The interesting thing about the Pyrrhonists is that, rather than making speculative conjectures (ex: Epicurean atoms) or taking a position (doubt), they chose rather to "pull the reins" (epoche) on thought when it could go no further on its own, despite Hume's later (IMO) misrepresentation of what the Pyrrhonists practiced. It's both interesting that the Pyrrhonist school died out around the time of Christianity's rise and certain statements and trajectories by some of the Fathers (ex Ss. John Chrysostom, Dionysios) I've come across sound similar to earlier Pyrrhonian positions. I wonder some times if some of the Pyrrhonists became Christian (here, I'm reminded of the Unknown God in Acts for some reason) due to being introduced to Trinitarian (Communal) theology. That's speculative on my part, but only a light speculation to be sure. Thanks again for your work. It's been great to encounter someone who's better in articulating thoughts and intimations that have come up for me. Please forgive me for the long post.
@@telosbound I haven't read Florensky yet but now even more interested in doing so. Yes, prior to my conversion I had a strong affinity with the Pyrrhonists for years (I'm an older dude😄), but came to a similar conclusion. I admit to still admiring their effort on a purely human level and they're still my favorite of the Hellenistic schools for that effort despite its failure. Yes, we are incarnated teleologically toward that rest in God. We're clothed in the garment of skin which itself is malleable to both the principles of nature, of becoming and passing away, and according to how our soul journeys through this world in that garment. From one of my favorite prayers to the Theotokos: "I have defiled the earth, O Lady, with my many sins." Given that our body is of dust, we alter it through sin, but we also do so, I believe, increasingly toward Christ when we pray more, grooving those 'neural pathways' away from old thoughts. Thoughts determine our lives: it's not just an abstraction, but as Pageau puts it, fractal all the way down to physiology. The aforementioned prayer goes on to say: "And now it [the earth] cries out against me. It brings heaven, the stars and sun as witnesses against me in the tribunal of the implacable Judge." Matter matters. Anyway, forgive me for my audacious speculation and may the Lord have mercy on me if these intimations lead anyone astray! God bless you.
Oh mannnnn i’ve been watching many of your videos over the past couple days and this is the most resonate one so far. Communal ontology! What a wonderful idea. Has Hegel been a large influence in your thought/content? Can’t thank you enough for these videos, really great stuff
@@telosbound In one of your videos you mentioned your evolution from Nietzsche to Zizek to Orthodoxy. One thing I love about reading Nietzsche is the joy of immanence and the rejection of the need for a transcendent world/heaven. Maybe I have misunderstood him but I always resonated with his critique of Christianity’s condemned world. I’ve always found his passion and joy for the natural immanent world beautiful. Like i’ve said before i’m incredibly ignorant when it comes to Christian theology. And I ask these questions in the least contentious way possible, i’m genuinely trying to learn. I’m interested in the Christians view of the natural beauty in the world? Are Nietzsches appreciations of the immanence of the world incompatible with Christian theology? I guess my main question is about the Christian view that our world is condemned and why that is the case? I know that’s long winded, no need to respond. Thanks again
@@telosbound that would be cool, i’ll check out the link. would love to hear more about your journey towards faith from a more philosophical background
Faith is lived, experiential union with God via the divine energies. God is not other, but rather the ground of our very being, which transcends rational thinking. Therefore, it is truly Self-referential. Until we live in communion with our Self - God - we can't possibly live in communion with others. Once we truly know ourself, we see that others are no longer other, but essentially one with us and all that is. Prayer is the noetic to door to communion - we must open that inner door. I hear no mention of prayer in anything you've said.
I've never seen your channel before but I'm about halfway through the video. It might be a level 1 atheist objection, but so far in the video faith has been portrayed as a virtue to cultivate. I think you mentioned it along with humility and the self sacrifice of rationality. What would you say to someone who has faith in something we think is bad?
How much do you think René Girard has to offer to this concept of communal ontology? His theories of memetic desire and scapegoting directly map onto culture, a form of community. I wonder how he might have reacted to this framing.
Okay third comment. If faith is openness to the other, how can you know something through faith? By knowing what something is, does that turn you off to being open to what something could be? For example, as soon as I say that I know a rock is in my backyard, can I truly still be open to the possibilty that there's not a rock in my backyard? At what point does something cease to become faith and become knowledge? You've mentioned a couple of times that atheists and some Christians even have a simplistic notion of what faith is, but I guess the response to that charge would be that even with the arguments laid out in this video (really well done by the way) having faith in a god and even specifically the Christian god would be arbitrary no? Maybe you've explained in another video that I just haven't seen yet, but how could one rule out faith for other gods or religious figures? As I'm typing this it does sound like a common atheist objection.
Second comment I'm leaving here. I really like your video by the way, it's engaging and I've paused several times to think about what you're saying. Do you ever feel you run the risk of defining your terms in a way that basically makes your argument for you? Like defining objective truth as being communal and also defining god as being communal so god is objective truth?
Communal ontology is such a great concept. Clever. The one in the many…and the many in the one
Hmm
The One in the many and the many in the One is the Holy Trinity, also the very meaning of the word Universe (hence no need for a many worlds theory), and the fundamental aspect of reality, as in even an Atom is made of three parts (proton, neutron, electron) and of those parts the proton, meaning the first, is also made of three quarks, thus one can say the Atom is made in the image of the Proton, so to speak.
Now if only we understood the difference between Classical physics (the Macro world) and Quantum Mechanics (the Micro world) as in that Classical Physics being of the Past, thus motion of the laws that can be observed of what actually happened (as in the past of what the wavelength collapsed into observable matter) and Quantum Mechanics as being of the Future and our attempt to peek into that Future, the wavelength of all our future potential and possibilities, the smallest part of our Cosmos being what falls first (fallen world) into the future of the uncreated Light of Being from which the World emerges.
Telosbound, think this over with individual free Will ( good Will vs ill Will) as the center and perhaps this too can be an aspect of Communal Ontology.
Either way, bravo and be blessed in having your message reach the many who need it.
Atheism ironically requires faith too, because they can’t prove with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist. You have to take a leap of faith to deny with confidence the existence of God.
Multiplicities in the unity…unity in the multiplicities…a union of the subject in the object, the object in the subject
Sounds like a hermetic structure. The God who is Becoming.
Brilliant. Can’t wait for these developments in your new book.
Great video! It’s amazing to think about these things. I’m sort of tripped out about the fact that self relation is irrational because it’s logically impossible for it be rational. Also amazing how our use of thought is impossible to be self referentially verified and yet it’s the capacity to think that allows us to understand this, which is also rooted in God. Maybe I’m getting stuck in thinking about how to validate rationality self referentially but why is it that we have this access to knowledge of inherently irrational actions like sin? There’s objectively nothing truly beneficial to sin or the knowledge thereof it seems. Except maybe just for the fact that it makes our decision to participate in being not entirely forced. It seems like in so much as we participate in being it’s impossible to actually be inclined toward anything other than God though and it’s also logically impossible for that to be a bad thing because desire and goodness both are rooted in God. As I go on thinking, Trying to rationalize self referential existence seems to be to try to rationalize the inherently irrational. I can’t understand the appeal of Hell lol and yet it’s impossible for me to have come to any other conclusion it seems. Sorry for the length
Go deep on the “Mutual Interiority” , below the shallow self, All interiority is mutual.
Much new concepts for me, rounding up my PhD right now so much of the definitions made sense on its own but it’s much different when in relation to the concept of God. I am amazed and intrigued that although being Christian, I did not think to apply ontological study in this way. Keep on the good work!
Fantastic video, thank you! This really clarified some things for me. God bless.
Faith isn't blind or something that people just think is true without evidence. Faith is trust. Accepting something as true with confidence. We don't just think Jesus rose from the dead but aren't sure we have trust in going to heaven if he actually did rise from the dead
Your arguments here regarding doubt remind me very much of Sextus Empiricus - and the Pyrrhonian Skeptics approach generally - against what he calls the Academic Skeptics - who held such a position of doubt. The interesting thing about the Pyrrhonists is that, rather than making speculative conjectures (ex: Epicurean atoms) or taking a position (doubt), they chose rather to "pull the reins" (epoche) on thought when it could go no further on its own, despite Hume's later (IMO) misrepresentation of what the Pyrrhonists practiced.
It's both interesting that the Pyrrhonist school died out around the time of Christianity's rise and certain statements and trajectories by some of the Fathers (ex Ss. John Chrysostom, Dionysios) I've come across sound similar to earlier Pyrrhonian positions. I wonder some times if some of the Pyrrhonists became Christian (here, I'm reminded of the Unknown God in Acts for some reason) due to being introduced to Trinitarian (Communal) theology. That's speculative on my part, but only a light speculation to be sure. Thanks again for your work. It's been great to encounter someone who's better in articulating thoughts and intimations that have come up for me. Please forgive me for the long post.
@@telosbound I haven't read Florensky yet but now even more interested in doing so. Yes, prior to my conversion I had a strong affinity with the Pyrrhonists for years (I'm an older dude😄), but came to a similar conclusion. I admit to still admiring their effort on a purely human level and they're still my favorite of the Hellenistic schools for that effort despite its failure.
Yes, we are incarnated teleologically toward that rest in God. We're clothed in the garment of skin which itself is malleable to both the principles of nature, of becoming and passing away, and according to how our soul journeys through this world in that garment.
From one of my favorite prayers to the Theotokos: "I have defiled the earth, O Lady, with my many sins." Given that our body is of dust, we alter it through sin, but we also do so, I believe, increasingly toward Christ when we pray more, grooving those 'neural pathways' away from old thoughts. Thoughts determine our lives: it's not just an abstraction, but as Pageau puts it, fractal all the way down to physiology. The aforementioned prayer goes on to say: "And now it [the earth] cries out against me. It brings heaven, the stars and sun as witnesses against me in the tribunal of the implacable Judge." Matter matters.
Anyway, forgive me for my audacious speculation and may the Lord have mercy on me if these intimations lead anyone astray! God bless you.
Oh mannnnn i’ve been watching many of your videos over the past couple days and this is the most resonate one so far. Communal ontology! What a wonderful idea. Has Hegel been a large influence in your thought/content? Can’t thank you enough for these videos, really great stuff
@@telosbound In one of your videos you mentioned your evolution from Nietzsche to Zizek to Orthodoxy. One thing I love about reading Nietzsche is the joy of immanence and the rejection of the need for a transcendent world/heaven. Maybe I have misunderstood him but I always resonated with his critique of Christianity’s condemned world. I’ve always found his passion and joy for the natural immanent world beautiful. Like i’ve said before i’m incredibly ignorant when it comes to Christian theology. And I ask these questions in the least contentious way possible, i’m genuinely trying to learn. I’m interested in the Christians view of the natural beauty in the world? Are Nietzsches appreciations of the immanence of the world incompatible with Christian theology? I guess my main question is about the Christian view that our world is condemned and why that is the case? I know that’s long winded, no need to respond. Thanks again
@@telosbound You’re the man thank you. I’ll subscribe to your sub stack. Appreciate all the work you do!
@@telosbound that would be cool, i’ll check out the link. would love to hear more about your journey towards faith from a more philosophical background
Non Ortho here but I've always thought there were intriguing parallels between Orthodoxy and Hegelianism.
This is a good one!
Faith is lived, experiential union with God via the divine energies. God is not other, but rather the ground of our very being, which transcends rational thinking. Therefore, it is truly Self-referential. Until we live in communion with our Self - God - we can't possibly live in communion with others. Once we truly know ourself, we see that others are no longer other, but essentially one with us and all that is. Prayer is the noetic to door to communion - we must open that inner door. I hear no mention of prayer in anything you've said.
@@telosbound I think we could have some very fruitful conversations. Enjoy your vacation!
Do a video on Islam/Guenon and their perennialism
I've never seen your channel before but I'm about halfway through the video. It might be a level 1 atheist objection, but so far in the video faith has been portrayed as a virtue to cultivate. I think you mentioned it along with humility and the self sacrifice of rationality. What would you say to someone who has faith in something we think is bad?
Sounds like Aufheben...sounds like you need to read Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition by Gregg Magee
How much do you think René Girard has to offer to this concept of communal ontology? His theories of memetic desire and scapegoting directly map onto culture, a form of community. I wonder how he might have reacted to this framing.
Is there a link to the other doubt and faith video?
Of Maximus, what should I read to get started
What do you think of Kierkegaard
I think you might miss a biblical view of flesh and sin and spirit sin for a man is made of Dust and Breath. Created and eternal
What do i know though
Okay third comment. If faith is openness to the other, how can you know something through faith? By knowing what something is, does that turn you off to being open to what something could be? For example, as soon as I say that I know a rock is in my backyard, can I truly still be open to the possibilty that there's not a rock in my backyard? At what point does something cease to become faith and become knowledge?
You've mentioned a couple of times that atheists and some Christians even have a simplistic notion of what faith is, but I guess the response to that charge would be that even with the arguments laid out in this video (really well done by the way) having faith in a god and even specifically the Christian god would be arbitrary no? Maybe you've explained in another video that I just haven't seen yet, but how could one rule out faith for other gods or religious figures? As I'm typing this it does sound like a common atheist objection.
Second comment I'm leaving here. I really like your video by the way, it's engaging and I've paused several times to think about what you're saying. Do you ever feel you run the risk of defining your terms in a way that basically makes your argument for you? Like defining objective truth as being communal and also defining god as being communal so god is objective truth?
😢😔💚🙏
So, are you a rationalist?
@@telosbound So how do we get knowledge? Via what?
In terms of subjectivity, how does the inner man (Christ) function since you seem to be saying that the persons of God are exterior to the mind?