Really glad to see John is getting the exposure he deserves. His discussions of psychological and philosophical topics, like "flow" and the "Meaning Crisis," were what originally brought me to his channel, but his very straight-forward and pragmatic approach to teaching meditation was probably the most valuable content for me. They helped me finally get out of a rut that had always limited my ability to maintain a steady practice by giving me clear, detailed steps to follow, rather than clouding the whole thing in mystical nonsense that had, for me at least, always obscured the process and had me questioning whether I was wasting my time with bullshit, for lack of a better word. If you happen to read this, John, thank you!
Awesome. I watched all 50hr of "Awakening from the meaning crisis". This talk is not a talk, it's a journey. I think it's a great summary of the 50hr (even though I know there is so much more to say)
John, if somebody is calling you an excellent example of a Christian, they see the Christ in you. You have a participation and perspective which reveals the Christ in the world. You become a symbol of the through-line, not in your propositions and ideas and explanations but in your pattern of being and the effect it has on the world around you. Be blessed and give thanks.
During my PhD, several years ago, I was working on the subject of nanofluids for gas-liquid absorption (solid nanoparticles dispersed in a liquid with the purpose of enhancing the heat/mass transfer properties of the fluid). At some point I got stuck while trying to come up with an hypothesis of the enhancement mechanism, as I am an engineer and not a physicist. Then, it occured to me the silly idea of vizualizing myself as a nano-size observer. Then, I could imagine "me" looking at the particles. I "saw" the forces acting upon them and the interactions they promoted at the gas/liquid interface. While I knew the physics involved in the process I still had to bring everything to a level which I could understand in a more "participatory way". Of course we do that when we simplify the phenomena and make a graphic representation on paper, an scketch for example. But this was different, I still needed to dive into that scale to feel that I actually comprehended it. To be honest I ended up with a lame hypothesis. I didn't trust enough that approach to help me understand the physics of that phenomena. I just thought I didn't have enough knowledge. After watching this I realize that instinctively I was trying to acquire that "knowledge" and that probably that was the right way. Now I can see how many of my issues with "understanding" academic concepts are actually solved when I try to embody them in some personal way. At least I can say that the "nano-me" thought experiment helped me get unstuck. Dr. Vervaek, your work is incredibly valuable at so many different levels! Thank you!
@@johnvervaeke Thank Goodness, things have been well. Lots of great challenges and beautiful moments. Just trying to finish what seems to be a never ending Maimonides series on the channel. Me too. I’d love to reconnect one of these days.
John, love your work. I really admire how you've followed in the footsteps of Peterson and uploaded your work to CZcams. You will never understand the full impact of your efforts. Your contributions are brilliant and unique. I believe your 50 lectures on the meaning crisis represent a masterpiece of the highest order and will ripple throughout society for many years to come. There is something about you and your insights that resonate at a very deep level. Please keep sharing your lectures, interviews, and general discussions on CZcams. They are truly a source of immense inspiration, meaning and guidance. For instance, your insights relating to the difference between propositional and procedural knowledge are stunning. I genuinely believe this subject alone can unlock truly transformative experiences if one is able to grasp what it is you are articulating. I speak from experience having actively sought out procedural knowledge after listening to your lectures and wow, what an unbelievabe experience I've had doing so. Emerging from an overly rational propositional-knowledge-obsessed society I feel like your insights are a cheat or a hack. They seem to life the veil so to speak and reveal a world rich in connection and adventure. Perhaps that speaks to how disconnected we are from the embodied way of life. Your hard work is much appreciated.
As someone who’s been following John V. for 2-3 years and had zero background on his work or cognitive science. I’ve come to appreciate John’s technical language when he presents. I realized that the mainstream notion of popular terms as e.g. well-being, mindfulnesses, insight, etc is an obstacle for people to understand the deeper ideas of his work. “Keeping track of your terms” is one my favorite life lessons from John V.
Thank you for helping me fall in love with being again. I fell prey to nihilism, but thanks to your work (along with Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau) I look and act upon the world with childlike love and wonder. If you’ll allow me some scripture: But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” Luke 18:16-17
This is profound. I will speak of it in stages. The first thing that comes to mind is the situation of the scientists on earth and the rover on mars. The rover being an extremely far distance, to the point of being out of time, burns the edges of the presupposition of empiricism. We cannot say, in other words, that the map of the scientists maps onto reality, although the map which they do use to communicate with the rover on mars, drawn with the crayons of their rationality, touches space and time in the same way that it touches the rover, beyond expectation and yet within expectation. This challenges the paradigm of scientific research as being the race to codify repeatable steps to the same single stone in reality, the same single waterfall in a chemical reaction, the same single economic consequence, and so on. It challenges the paradigm, I argue, on interior grounds.
Really? You feel you can complete JV with Jordan Peterson? Peterson seems to me too have become caught in his own narcissistic loops and to have collapsed in on himself, retreating from open inquiry and knowledge into conservative dogma and intellectual savagery. Not so great. John, on the other hand, is pushing the boundaries of knowledge and self-understanding. Look at the many fronts of his work, the quality of thought, and the regard in which he is held by other leading lights in the human sciences. Great indeed.
@@andrewcolliver2642 true, he is off on a tangent and looks like he has collapsed; to us. But ,no one can deny he has a great mind. Let's wait and see where it will lead to.
@Andrew Colliver Speaking truth to power. That is Jordan Peterson. You are what the kids refer to as a hater. Not only are your Peterson insults petty and inaccurate, your last one doesn’t even make sense. Read his books. Or watch some of his lectures before he baca me famous. He understands human nature and is trying to warn know it alls like you, where our culture is taking us and what individuals can do about it in their own lives. Those who have much to lose, but continue to stand tall and speak out against the majority deserve a second look, a second listen and a bit of credit for their courage. All tho folks like you don’t have the patience or courage to look for nuance and meaning where the majority tribe has labeled, censored and ostracized the origin source
Great to see the traction these concepts are getting that I have personally found so helpful. Exciting to see what the impact will be in the culture. Ended on the cliffhanger of if Lord Bird got his pen back too, adding to the drama….
Thank you for the talk, John. This was your best explanation of the imaginal I've heard so far. As an industrial designer, generating alterative affordances is a huge part of the creative process!
Ah, this is so interesting! “Alternative accordances.” It reminds me of something Peterson said once. You can tell how creative a person is by seeing how many purposes they can come up with for a brick in 60 seconds.
Excellent talk, I love your passion. I once got into it long conversation/debate with a "rational atheist" type where I attempted to show how all knowledge is built upon ritual and tradition, even scientific knowledge. The insights you bring out here really give me a better understanding of how pervasive and necessary ritual is.
A masterful speaker; a revolutionary thinker; a genuine personality; a cultural treasure. Thank you John, for providing me, and many others, with the wisdom that is lacking nowadays. Magnificent speech, and one that I'll return to many more times.
Professor, I am so happy that this talk occured and that your ideas are reaching a broader audience. Your insights make so much complex material graspable and palatable (and there go embodied expressions to describe understanding again!) Thank you for your earnestness.
Go John , Go! It is always awesome to hear you speak and enlighten people's minds! I am so grateful for your course, it is such a gift, a blessing! I feel honored to have been educated by you, it is as if God graciously guided me along a new beautiful journey and at the beginning of the journey, he placed you and your work and I am so glad to have followed the notion to embrace what you had to teach. I have grown as a person, in all the best ways. You have assisted me to grow into a better version of myself, who I am created to be. I feel so much more connected to life, I feel that I even have some meaning in the world- I am meant to be here and I have worth and I am capable of experiencing love, receiving it, giving it and embodying it. I cannot explain adequately enough, how much this changed my life. Hallelujah! Thank you for being who you are, you have played an important role in it and one of the gifts I have seen become a part of my being, is joy and I cannot exclude you from being someone who contributed (unknowingly ) to that becoming real, I have a lot of respect for you and I hope to shake your hand one day, Sir . Sending loads of love from South Africa, come break some records over here too
It's a great pleasure to look through the comments of your videos and see how interactive you are with all of us in the meaning making community. Another amazing lecture, thank you.
This talk genuinely consolidates a large body of cog-sci literature, both neuroscientific and philosophical. Specifically, this work consolidates the role different types of memory serve in generating social phenomena and play, for lack of a better term. I think I would like John to more explicitly define Ritual, however. For example, if I understand him, I think he would permit my defining Ritual as "the emergent social practices that permit the incorporation of external 'viewpoints' of phenomenon and identities into the salience map of individuals, allowing humans to more effectively perceive and navigate their environment and achieve their goals via the incorporation of those different perspectives." I generally like this idea, and it is supported by the kind of play children engage in when they generate their own stories and narratives and then personally learn from those narratives or are guided to learn through those narratives, as if they are a kind of transformative play. It seems this ritualistic process is innately human, guided by unconscious physiological processes such as the interaction of amines, peptides, and our nervous systems, which are all mediated -- in part -- by our genes, only affected epigenetically.
That definitely sounds like a Vervaekean definition, and I've spent dozens of hours watching Vervaeke's lectures & convos over a year or 2 I was fortunate enough to stumble onto an online community that held weekly 1 hour meetings for a Vervaeke discussion group. A video was chosen (either a dialogue or a lecture), participants would watch it sometime that week before the meeting, and then we'd bring up any inquiries, insights, or connections that arose for each of us and try to help fill in each others gaps in understanding. I mention this because it's fitting that people are naturally forming communities of practice just to try to understand what Vervaeke is getting at Another reason I'm mentioning the communities of practice is that the whole "engage in serious play with others" approach that JV advocates seems to be crazy effective (albeit anecdotally) at quickly digesting a new idea and grounding it in one's set of personal experiences. Highly recommended to find such communities of practice for learning in general and especially for learning JV's stuff
Videos like this just casually drop mind shattering bombs like “perhaps scripture isn’t god asking one to believe in propositions but to adopt my perspective and see what it’s like” and then move on like nothing happened 😅
The humble approach to his genius is the sacredness he is searching for. Look no further. You cannot can, crystallise nor make it i into a system. Just be you. Be an inspiration. Those with ears to hear…
this is so grounding and empowering at the same time. it signals a path across the truly ideational bridge between inertia and animation; dare I say material and magic. the impeccable vocabulary is a welcome walk to the verdant grove, while the meanings open vistas as seen from altitude. many thanks.
As a game dev, the example of what creates immersion is totally on point. It's never about fidelity, it's about engagement and if players aren't asking questions internally while playing, they won't experience engagement. The dynamic of question -reveal - question - reveal is the real source of immersion and depth is achieved by stacking symbolic representations of themes in multiple domains (visual, auditory, symbols, interface, narrative, dialog... The more of these domains you insert consistent symbolism that supports narrative themes, the more "depth" you achieve).
So, this is the 3rd time I have watched this extraordinary lecture from John Vervaeke, and while I fully acknowledge that there is little left to be said on the matter, I also have carefully considered John's point he has made many times about distributed cognition. With that said, I think that a dia-logos with Michael Sugrue would be very fruitful. There is one lecture in particular from Michael that instantly springs to mind for me, and I will attach the link to this comment. It is the one on Henri Bergson and Elan Vital. The convergence of Bergsons ideas with this new wave of frontier 4E cognitive science is astonishing. In particular, Bergsons idea of intution and empathy seems to fit extremely well with the notion of participatory and perspectival knowing, which all align tightly with Iain Mcgilchrists' hemisphere hypothesis where the right hemisphere quite literally has a better understanding of pretty much everything than that of the left hemisphere. Ians' work demonstrates very strongly that the predilections of the left hemisphere appear to be dominated by propositional knowing, abstraction, analytical thinking, utility, and a devitalisation of pretty much everything. If we consider this seriously, then it is also worth lending some of our attention to what Michael Levins' work and Rupert Sheldrakes' may have to say regarding morphogenesis and how we may at a very fundamental level be intuiting or empathising our way through the world prior to analysing and abstraction, similar to how life itself appears to resonate in by some type of wavefield (whether it be morphic resonance as Rupert calls it), but certainly modern quantum physics results have only lent more weight to this argument. If the physical world itself is non-local and fundamentally grounded in wave behaviour and fields, then there may be a possible 'mechanism' if that's the appropriate term to describe and explain the stories John gave about the Nasa scientists having a seemingly empathic connection to the Mars rover and many other stories such as documented at length by Rupert Sheldrake and others. Finally, another interesting character that wrote about something in a similar manner was Michael Polyani, who described what he called "the tacit dimension" which was a somewhat intuitive way if knowing and at a deeper level. Anyway, cross-pollination of these ideas will no doubt raise more intriguing questions and inspire more insights such as the ones John has kindly shared in this video. Many thanks.
So, I've often felt that John sounds like some of the sacramental theologians. The Eucharist is sometimes understood to be anamnesis (making present and effective the passover of the Lamb of God, or Christ's donation of Himself in the way He asked His disciples to remember Him), and proleptic (an anticipatory participation in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb in the Eschaton). In that sense its a way of participating in Him who was and is and is to come. There are other connections, perhaps especially in certain Anglican understandings of Real Presence, with an emphasis on the "throughness" of sacramental participation. I also wonder if the "proleptic" aspect of participation has overlap with Pierce's notion of "abduction," in the process of discovery or problem solving or creative breakthrough?
And, one other theological/sacramental connection on the basis of the last answer, referencing Merleau-Ponty-- that he was "indwelling" the pen as it struck the glass. The theological understanding of the purpose of the Incarnation, particularly in light of the Gospel of John, is that Christ becomes flesh and dwells/tabernacles among us (in that human flesh), so that we can, by virtue of His Ascent in His Risen and glorified humanity, pour out the Holy Spirit, that we might indwell God. In this mutual participation we are known and know God, we are loved and love God. It is a transformational knowing by means of participation or koinonia (though some later theologians would use the Platonic term, metathesis). I believe that occasionally analogia is used, as well (which is to say that by means of participatory analogia, we are able to be and see from above and beyond, in concert with the perichoretic and kenotic motions of God, in an "exaptative" anagogic sense.)
I'm not well versed in the terminology you use I'm aftaid. At the end of the Q & A section, I had a thought about wanting to live through Christ and in Christ, and whilst I'm sorry to say that I don't unfortunately understand all your terminology, perhaps that's a similar or related thing? Living in the spirit of Christ. Like in-dwelling a spirit or hyper agent. Like in-dwelling the pen (?). What you in-dwell will help determine what you see, and how you live with the world (?). Sorry to jump on to your post when I'm obviously a lot less well read! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
@@littlelights6798 Thank you for sharing your sense of things. I wouldn't be surprised if your inclinations, coming away from John's wonderful lecture, are in line with these various theological/philosophical attempts to understand and describe sacramental rites, as well as other experiential/mediated ways of knowing and becoming!
Fantastic lecture! It was fascinating to me that although a majority of the audience was likely unfamiliar with your work, and much of the subject matter was inherently erudite, all of the participants asking questions seemed to genuinely connect to the enterprise naturally. I think this demonstrably shows you are on the right track. Thank you for sharing.
as I was listening to this, I realized that in the past people unconsciously recognized these different ways of knowing, and took actionin the real world with regards to themselves and other members. This could mean that if my tribe is stuck in a state of propositional knowing then I'd change (even forcefully) their salience landscape possibly to a state of participatory knowing. This means that in a tribal situation your identity, your individuality doesn't count that much. You'd be literally forced to think and act differently. In our civilized world with individuals and all sorts of rights that protect them, we have no other option than to simply talk about these concepts, as John does, with the hope that they'll be understood and accepted by each individual and then on a voluntary basis shifted by each person individually - this honestly seems like an immense load on each and one of us, sometimes I just want someone to violate my rights and force these concepts upon me, regardless of my rigid resistance
Interesting that in the Q and A the host keeps handing the microphone to John and he is already 'wired'. Perhaps illustrating John's points about salience landscaping or mapping and ritual.
This is an excellent lecture, John, thank you very much! I feel your story is getting more concise and plastic, as if you applied the very imaginal techniques you talk about to meta-demonstrate how transformation works. You enact the scientist enacting the Mars rover :). Three comments: 1) There is still a limited-participation detached notion, for my taste, in how you name the third level: perspectival. The metaphor is "looking" whereas my instincts would call it something like immersive, including touching and feeling also my internal state. 2) In some way I would like to have more focus on the procedural level because that is the only place where I can do something about anything. The imaginal is only one way to make myself do something transformative, an important one, good marketers actually know this very well. But there are others, from social causes to pure curiosity-driven exploration. I do because I can. Take this with a grain of salt, I am both scoring high on openness and enjoying contact-based transformative experiences very much, so generalization may not follow. 3) Getting a taste of curiosity-driven transformation can actually be self-perpetuating: I can fall in love with the transformational process itself, getting skilled at the meta-perspectival, having an acceleration term in the reciprocal broadening.
- Prof. John Vervaeke : "...that is predictive of meaning in life come out of our procedural knowing, perspectival knowing and participatory knowing " - Public : * *takes notes* *
This was an amazing talk John. The only thing I wish, was that your concepts weren’t so rich at times, or that the people in the crowd had prerequisite knowledge of your work. I heard some people in post lecture questions were struggling with understanding your work, and your answered always tap into your lexicon. I feel as though you really try to answer the question in the most technical way possible, where in this format decomplexifying and using heuristics might be more appropriate so people get a better sense of the ideas. Still overjoyed you got to speak to so many (and even politicians) and you are still growing!
Oh my, for a brief moment I thought that I just spotted Ian Nepomniachtchi at 1:46:30 just slightly left from JV 😂 Highly interesting talk and what a gift Johns unique perspective and insight is to the world.
Thanks so much John. Great to see the dialogue post talk - some extraordinary stuff. Love to hear your full defence of a wider concept of "knowledge". Does anyone know of a/some AFTMC reading lists? Gotta have go at L A Paul!
I finally understood a little better the distincition between perspectival and participatory knowing, that was much more opaque to me before. Still, I don't have the participatory 100% clear yet. Is it right to say that to have participary knowledge would be to have a procedural knowledge about how to be in the perspective required by a certain role?
In my notes I have 'lived truth as propositional, depending on fitness to purpose (procedural) which depends on perspectival (what it's like to be in that situation) giving a sort of safe space to then experiment beyond inferential rationality, into the participatory space of virtuous behavior and a meta virtue of wisdom'. I think you're saying participatory knowledge instead of knowing, procedural knowledge is right though and there's something about "how to be in the perspective required" which seems more like propositional than a perspectival knowing giving a safe space..if that's right. The danger is in the proposition and perspective becoming too closely aligned with a removal from participatory knowing, since one's own world is simplified.
@@socraticsceptic8047 That's a great question. Perhaps the different "objects" as different knowledge are similar when not apprehended by the knowledge process. Where does the depending part come from, maybe one part is this internal need, call it give and take of homeostasis. This is all in relation to a person of course. If the world external to an organism also has the same give and take set, and the two sets interact, let's say there's trivial need and strong dependence. With say three sets of interaction for higher order organisms, this might go in the other direction of essential needs and weak dependence, being able to remove from context as "consciousness". So I guess useful beliefs as providing homeostasis for higher organisms. The beliefs themselves as temporary objects that are used to balance. This ties to why it has to flow from propositional to procedural to perspective to participatory since the middle two are about forming what are supposed to be temporary objects but when simplified to only those two (mostly) the "object" seems reinforced which unbalances. The propositional and participatory are objects in different spaces (two sets of give and take) that seems to need this third, the set of give and take between two temporary objects of procedural and perspectival. That way it can be both stable and dynamic, I guess.
@@projectmalus Thanks for the reply - however I am struggling to follow you...what does this mean?: "Perhaps the different "objects" as different knowledge are similar when not apprehended by the knowledge process. "
@@socraticsceptic8047 I think knowledge points to "the output of some process or the process itself (cognition or motion) by which we come in contact with reality" when John talks about it. I might be seriously wrong but this is how I think about it.
I actually have a question and thought I’ll try since I can see you are checking the comments 🙂 As far as I can tell in my own phenomenological observations the imaginal is the basis for all conscious perception. In other words it seems to me that the faculty of imagination with real time feedback **is** the ‘world’ we perceive. Is this a mistaken notion?
No it is not a mistaken notion. In other places are argue that both deep learning and predictive processing posit that the imaginal is integral to perception.
@@johnvervaeke Thank you for taking the time to answer John. I would love it if at some point in the future you post more lectures or conversations on the imaginal. Keep up the great work 🙏
"Doing feild-work" is being a certain sort of technician who can operate an instrument effectively and efficiently and accurately. That's not "doing science". The scientist can sit next to the technician and tell the technician what to do with the instrument. So the technician need not "know how to do science".
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
The guy with the nodding head keeps dominating my salience landscape.
When Vervaeke takes center stage, the world unfolds a better place. The shine of wisdom! Awesome talk!
What a splendid way to put it! I absolutely agree whole-heartedly. There are very few people who inspire new perspective for me nearly as much.
If you are still feeling confused, this will explain a lot 👉 👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥
This is the fastest I’ve ever hit a notify me button ❤️
Me too! Haha
Damn, you beat me to it 🤣
Same here!
Tritto
Funny that the man who helped me understand what agape is, brings out the deepest agape from within me.
This is the best explanation of the 4Ps John has done I think - someone should clip it
Really glad to see John is getting the exposure he deserves. His discussions of psychological and philosophical topics, like "flow" and the "Meaning Crisis," were what originally brought me to his channel, but his very straight-forward and pragmatic approach to teaching meditation was probably the most valuable content for me. They helped me finally get out of a rut that had always limited my ability to maintain a steady practice by giving me clear, detailed steps to follow, rather than clouding the whole thing in mystical nonsense that had, for me at least, always obscured the process and had me questioning whether I was wasting my time with bullshit, for lack of a better word. If you happen to read this, John, thank you!
If you are still feeling confused, this will explain a lot 👉 👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥
Awesome. I watched all 50hr of "Awakening from the meaning crisis". This talk is not a talk, it's a journey. I think it's a great summary of the 50hr (even though I know there is so much more to say)
Indeed. He covered a ton.
John, if somebody is calling you an excellent example of a Christian, they see the Christ in you. You have a participation and perspective which reveals the Christ in the world.
You become a symbol of the through-line, not in your propositions and ideas and explanations but in your pattern of being and the effect it has on the world around you.
Be blessed and give thanks.
If you are still feeling confused, this will explain a lot 👉 👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥
During my PhD, several years ago, I was working on the subject of nanofluids for gas-liquid absorption (solid nanoparticles dispersed in a liquid with the purpose of enhancing the heat/mass transfer properties of the fluid). At some point I got stuck while trying to come up with an hypothesis of the enhancement mechanism, as I am an engineer and not a physicist. Then, it occured to me the silly idea of vizualizing myself as a nano-size observer. Then, I could imagine "me" looking at the particles. I "saw" the forces acting upon them and the interactions they promoted at the gas/liquid interface. While I knew the physics involved in the process I still had to bring everything to a level which I could understand in a more "participatory way". Of course we do that when we simplify the phenomena and make a graphic representation on paper, an scketch for example. But this was different, I still needed to dive into that scale to feel that I actually comprehended it. To be honest I ended up with a lame hypothesis. I didn't trust enough that approach to help me understand the physics of that phenomena. I just thought I didn't have enough knowledge. After watching this I realize that instinctively I was trying to acquire that "knowledge" and that probably that was the right way. Now I can see how many of my issues with "understanding" academic concepts are actually solved when I try to embody them in some personal way. At least I can say that the "nano-me" thought experiment helped me get unstuck. Dr. Vervaek, your work is incredibly valuable at so many different levels! Thank you!
If you are still feeling confused, this will explain a lot 👉 👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥
All the great minds had great breakthroughs by way of thought experiments.
for now on, every time somebody asks me "what's up?"
I'll just recite this.
maddening how addictive John's work is to me since I started aftmc.
If you are still feeling confused, this will explain a lot 👉 👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥
And the award for most important contemporary scientist goes to...Prof. Vervaeke.
Have you become a Christian yet, Dr. Vervaeke? Largely because of you I came into full Communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
So much brilliant material in one lecture. A work of art. Great questions too! Amazing.
We’re lucky to have kind, courageous thinkers like you around John. Proud to be your friend, Zevi
Thank you my friend. I hope things are well for you. I miss talking with you.
@@johnvervaeke Thank Goodness, things have been well. Lots of great challenges and beautiful moments. Just trying to finish what seems to be a never ending Maimonides series on the channel. Me too. I’d love to reconnect one of these days.
John, love your work. I really admire how you've followed in the footsteps of Peterson and uploaded your work to CZcams. You will never understand the full impact of your efforts. Your contributions are brilliant and unique. I believe your 50 lectures on the meaning crisis represent a masterpiece of the highest order and will ripple throughout society for many years to come.
There is something about you and your insights that resonate at a very deep level. Please keep sharing your lectures, interviews, and general discussions on CZcams. They are truly a source of immense inspiration, meaning and guidance. For instance, your insights relating to the difference between propositional and procedural knowledge are stunning. I genuinely believe this subject alone can unlock truly transformative experiences if one is able to grasp what it is you are articulating. I speak from experience having actively sought out procedural knowledge after listening to your lectures and wow, what an unbelievabe experience I've had doing so. Emerging from an overly rational propositional-knowledge-obsessed society I feel like your insights are a cheat or a hack. They seem to life the veil so to speak and reveal a world rich in connection and adventure. Perhaps that speaks to how disconnected we are from the embodied way of life.
Your hard work is much appreciated.
👏👏👏👏 Need to watch this again several times
I gave some friends the nine dot problem and I didn`t say "think outside of the box" but "expand your mind", and it seemed to help
JV at his best. This pulls together so many threads from AFTMC. Wonderful!
I love you! I thank you deeply. Without you it is not possible.
Thank you so much for always freely sharing. I learn so much, which is priceless. 🙏
As someone who’s been following John V. for 2-3 years and had zero background on his work or cognitive science. I’ve come to appreciate John’s technical language when he presents.
I realized that the mainstream notion of popular terms as e.g. well-being, mindfulnesses, insight, etc is an obstacle for people to understand the deeper ideas of his work.
“Keeping track of your terms” is one my favorite life lessons from John V.
this is the video to link to if you want someone to introduce to John! most excellent thank you so much !
Very interesting talk!
Thank you for helping me fall in love with being again. I fell prey to nihilism, but thanks to your work (along with Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau) I look and act upon the world with childlike love and wonder.
If you’ll allow me some scripture:
But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
Luke 18:16-17
This is profound. I will speak of it in stages. The first thing that comes to mind is the situation of the scientists on earth and the rover on mars. The rover being an extremely far distance, to the point of being out of time, burns the edges of the presupposition of empiricism. We cannot say, in other words, that the map of the scientists maps onto reality, although the map which they do use to communicate with the rover on mars, drawn with the crayons of their rationality, touches space and time in the same way that it touches the rover, beyond expectation and yet within expectation. This challenges the paradigm of scientific research as being the race to codify repeatable steps to the same single stone in reality, the same single waterfall in a chemical reaction, the same single economic consequence, and so on. It challenges the paradigm, I argue, on interior grounds.
Thank you John. Your work is so important!
Great Men coming out of Canada. John verveke and jordon peterson!
Really? You feel you can complete JV with Jordan Peterson? Peterson seems to me too have become caught in his own narcissistic loops and to have collapsed in on himself, retreating from open inquiry and knowledge into conservative dogma and intellectual savagery. Not so great.
John, on the other hand, is pushing the boundaries of knowledge and self-understanding. Look at the many fronts of his work, the quality of thought, and the regard in which he is held by other leading lights in the human sciences. Great indeed.
@@andrewcolliver2642 true, he is off on a tangent and looks like he has collapsed; to us. But ,no one can deny he has a great mind. Let's wait and see where it will lead to.
@Andrew Colliver
Speaking truth to power. That is Jordan Peterson.
You are what the kids refer to as a hater.
Not only are your Peterson insults petty and inaccurate, your last one doesn’t even make sense.
Read his books. Or watch some of his lectures before he baca me famous. He understands human nature and is trying to warn know it alls like you, where our culture is taking us and what individuals can do about it in their own lives.
Those who have much to lose, but continue to stand tall and speak out against the majority deserve a second look, a second listen and a bit of credit for their courage.
All tho folks like you don’t have the patience or courage to look for nuance and meaning where the majority tribe has labeled, censored and ostracized the origin source
Well done, time does fly, thank you John for sharing this discussion.
Peace
Thank you for sharing your knowledge! You have changed my life!
Great to see the traction these concepts are getting that I have personally found so helpful. Exciting to see what the impact will be in the culture. Ended on the cliffhanger of if Lord Bird got his pen back too, adding to the drama….
Thank you for the talk, John. This was your best explanation of the imaginal I've heard so far. As an industrial designer, generating alterative affordances is a huge part of the creative process!
Ah, this is so interesting! “Alternative accordances.” It reminds me of something Peterson said once. You can tell how creative a person is by seeing how many purposes they can come up with for a brick in 60 seconds.
Brilliant, just simply brilliant. Thank you John 🙏
Becoming one with Spirit, the rover. I love it! This was a heartful and mindful talk. Thank you for sharing it.
Excellent talk, I love your passion. I once got into it long conversation/debate with a "rational atheist" type where I attempted to show how all knowledge is built upon ritual and tradition, even scientific knowledge. The insights you bring out here really give me a better understanding of how pervasive and necessary ritual is.
A masterful speaker; a revolutionary thinker; a genuine personality; a cultural treasure.
Thank you John, for providing me, and many others, with the wisdom that is lacking nowadays.
Magnificent speech, and one that I'll return to many more times.
Professor, I am so happy that this talk occured and that your ideas are reaching a broader audience. Your insights make so much complex material graspable and palatable (and there go embodied expressions to describe understanding again!)
Thank you for your earnestness.
Good to see you in a suit and tie, John 😀
This is a beautiful talk.
John is describing the Stanislavsky method as it relates to the rehearsal, and
performance space.
Go John , Go! It is always awesome to hear you speak and enlighten people's minds! I am so grateful for your course, it is such a gift, a blessing! I feel honored to have been educated by you, it is as if God graciously guided me along a new beautiful journey and at the beginning of the journey, he placed you and your work and I am so glad to have followed the notion to embrace what you had to teach. I have grown as a person, in all the best ways. You have assisted me to grow into a better version of myself, who I am created to be. I feel so much more connected to life, I feel that I even have some meaning in the world- I am meant to be here and I have worth and I am capable of experiencing love, receiving it, giving it and embodying it. I cannot explain adequately enough, how much this changed my life. Hallelujah! Thank you for being who you are, you have played an important role in it and one of the gifts I have seen become a part of my being, is joy and I cannot exclude you from being someone who contributed (unknowingly ) to that becoming real, I have a lot of respect for you and I hope to shake your hand one day, Sir . Sending loads of love from South Africa, come break some records over here too
It's a great pleasure to look through the comments of your videos and see how interactive you are with all of us in the meaning making community. Another amazing lecture, thank you.
Normally, you would have to watch many of Vervaeke's videos to get a picture this rich in content.
John, may your floors always be walkable.
This talk genuinely consolidates a large body of cog-sci literature, both neuroscientific and philosophical. Specifically, this work consolidates the role different types of memory serve in generating social phenomena and play, for lack of a better term. I think I would like John to more explicitly define Ritual, however. For example, if I understand him, I think he would permit my defining Ritual as "the emergent social practices that permit the incorporation of external 'viewpoints' of phenomenon and identities into the salience map of individuals, allowing humans to more effectively perceive and navigate their environment and achieve their goals via the incorporation of those different perspectives." I generally like this idea, and it is supported by the kind of play children engage in when they generate their own stories and narratives and then personally learn from those narratives or are guided to learn through those narratives, as if they are a kind of transformative play. It seems this ritualistic process is innately human, guided by unconscious physiological processes such as the interaction of amines, peptides, and our nervous systems, which are all mediated -- in part -- by our genes, only affected epigenetically.
That definitely sounds like a Vervaekean definition, and I've spent dozens of hours watching Vervaeke's lectures & convos over a year or 2
I was fortunate enough to stumble onto an online community that held weekly 1 hour meetings for a Vervaeke discussion group. A video was chosen (either a dialogue or a lecture), participants would watch it sometime that week before the meeting, and then we'd bring up any inquiries, insights, or connections that arose for each of us and try to help fill in each others gaps in understanding. I mention this because it's fitting that people are naturally forming communities of practice just to try to understand what Vervaeke is getting at
Another reason I'm mentioning the communities of practice is that the whole "engage in serious play with others" approach that JV advocates seems to be crazy effective (albeit anecdotally) at quickly digesting a new idea and grounding it in one's set of personal experiences. Highly recommended to find such communities of practice for learning in general and especially for learning JV's stuff
Magnificent John, thanks for this.
Videos like this just casually drop mind shattering bombs like “perhaps scripture isn’t god asking one to believe in propositions but to adopt my perspective and see what it’s like” and then move on like nothing happened 😅
The humble approach to his genius is the sacredness he is searching for. Look no further. You cannot can, crystallise nor make it i into a system. Just be you. Be an inspiration. Those with ears to hear…
Start time 4:20
Very engaging and, in a way, "mind opening."
Oh oh oh. Ridiculous excitement ... And weird to not see JV sitting on his couch (in a good way)
And some "wow!" great questions in their.
Attention of the whole or parts...so important as a point
Really great talk. Also a great summary of the Meaning crisis series 😊
Simply stunning!
this is so grounding and empowering at the same time. it signals a path across the truly ideational bridge between inertia and animation; dare I say material and magic. the impeccable vocabulary is a welcome walk to the verdant grove, while the meanings open vistas as seen from altitude. many thanks.
As a game dev, the example of what creates immersion is totally on point. It's never about fidelity, it's about engagement and if players aren't asking questions internally while playing, they won't experience engagement. The dynamic of question -reveal - question - reveal is the real source of immersion and depth is achieved by stacking symbolic representations of themes in multiple domains (visual, auditory, symbols, interface, narrative, dialog... The more of these domains you insert consistent symbolism that supports narrative themes, the more "depth" you achieve).
So, this is the 3rd time I have watched this extraordinary lecture from John Vervaeke, and while I fully acknowledge that there is little left to be said on the matter, I also have carefully considered John's point he has made many times about distributed cognition. With that said, I think that a dia-logos with Michael Sugrue would be very fruitful.
There is one lecture in particular from Michael that instantly springs to mind for me, and I will attach the link to this comment. It is the one on Henri Bergson and Elan Vital. The convergence of Bergsons ideas with this new wave of frontier 4E cognitive science is astonishing.
In particular, Bergsons idea of intution and empathy seems to fit extremely well with the notion of participatory and perspectival knowing, which all align tightly with Iain Mcgilchrists' hemisphere hypothesis where the right hemisphere quite literally has a better understanding of pretty much everything than that of the left hemisphere.
Ians' work demonstrates very strongly that the predilections of the left hemisphere appear to be dominated by propositional knowing, abstraction, analytical thinking, utility, and a devitalisation of pretty much everything. If we consider this seriously, then it is also worth lending some of our attention to what Michael Levins' work and Rupert Sheldrakes' may have to say regarding morphogenesis and how we may at a very fundamental level be intuiting or empathising our way through the world prior to analysing and abstraction, similar to how life itself appears to resonate in by some type of wavefield (whether it be morphic resonance as Rupert calls it), but certainly modern quantum physics results have only lent more weight to this argument.
If the physical world itself is non-local and fundamentally grounded in wave behaviour and fields, then there may be a possible 'mechanism' if that's the appropriate term to describe and explain the stories John gave about the Nasa scientists having a seemingly empathic connection to the Mars rover and many other stories such as documented at length by Rupert Sheldrake and others.
Finally, another interesting character that wrote about something in a similar manner was Michael Polyani, who described what he called "the tacit dimension" which was a somewhat intuitive way if knowing and at a deeper level.
Anyway, cross-pollination of these ideas will no doubt raise more intriguing questions and inspire more insights such as the ones John has kindly shared in this video. Many thanks.
czcams.com/video/0-JN_vf9EFo/video.html
So, I've often felt that John sounds like some of the sacramental theologians. The Eucharist is sometimes understood to be anamnesis (making present and effective the passover of the Lamb of God, or Christ's donation of Himself in the way He asked His disciples to remember Him), and proleptic (an anticipatory participation in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb in the Eschaton). In that sense its a way of participating in Him who was and is and is to come. There are other connections, perhaps especially in certain Anglican understandings of Real Presence, with an emphasis on the "throughness" of sacramental participation. I also wonder if the "proleptic" aspect of participation has overlap with Pierce's notion of "abduction," in the process of discovery or problem solving or creative breakthrough?
And, one other theological/sacramental connection on the basis of the last answer, referencing Merleau-Ponty-- that he was "indwelling" the pen as it struck the glass. The theological understanding of the purpose of the Incarnation, particularly in light of the Gospel of John, is that Christ becomes flesh and dwells/tabernacles among us (in that human flesh), so that we can, by virtue of His Ascent in His Risen and glorified humanity, pour out the Holy Spirit, that we might indwell God. In this mutual participation we are known and know God, we are loved and love God. It is a transformational knowing by means of participation or koinonia (though some later theologians would use the Platonic term, metathesis). I believe that occasionally analogia is used, as well (which is to say that by means of participatory analogia, we are able to be and see from above and beyond, in concert with the perichoretic and kenotic motions of God, in an "exaptative" anagogic sense.)
I'm not well versed in the terminology you use I'm aftaid. At the end of the Q & A section, I had a thought about wanting to live through Christ and in Christ, and whilst I'm sorry to say that I don't unfortunately understand all your terminology, perhaps that's a similar or related thing? Living in the spirit of Christ. Like in-dwelling a spirit or hyper agent. Like in-dwelling the pen (?). What you in-dwell will help determine what you see, and how you live with the world (?).
Sorry to jump on to your post when I'm obviously a lot less well read! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
@@littlelights6798 Thank you for sharing your sense of things. I wouldn't be surprised if your inclinations, coming away from John's wonderful lecture, are in line with these various theological/philosophical attempts to understand and describe sacramental rites, as well as other experiential/mediated ways of knowing and becoming!
So good John!
Ritual and novelty in relationship.
THANK YOU!!!
This is refreshing, and I'm soo excited for September's meetup! Thank you for posting this! I'll see you on the airsoft course
This is one of the best talks I've ever heard. Thank you so much
Appreciate YOUR time JV ❤️🍄
Fantastic lecture! It was fascinating to me that although a majority of the audience was likely unfamiliar with your work, and much of the subject matter was inherently erudite, all of the participants asking questions seemed to genuinely connect to the enterprise naturally. I think this demonstrably shows you are on the right track.
Thank you for sharing.
wow! Amazing!
Thanks John!
as I was listening to this, I realized that in the past people unconsciously recognized these different ways of knowing, and took actionin the real world with regards to themselves and other members. This could mean that if my tribe is stuck in a state of propositional knowing then I'd change (even forcefully) their salience landscape possibly to a state of participatory knowing. This means that in a tribal situation your identity, your individuality doesn't count that much. You'd be literally forced to think and act differently.
In our civilized world with individuals and all sorts of rights that protect them, we have no other option than to simply talk about these concepts, as John does, with the hope that they'll be understood and accepted by each individual and then on a voluntary basis shifted by each person individually - this honestly seems like an immense load on each and one of us, sometimes I just want someone to violate my rights and force these concepts upon me, regardless of my rigid resistance
Looking forward to this conversation!
Interesting that in the Q and A the host keeps handing the microphone to John and he is already 'wired'. Perhaps illustrating John's points about salience landscaping or mapping and ritual.
1:31:25 John answers a question about propositional fixation (or what is sometimes referred to as 'the tyranny of the propositional').
A very good into to your work John!
This is an excellent lecture, John, thank you very much! I feel your story is getting more concise and plastic, as if you applied the very imaginal techniques you talk about to meta-demonstrate how transformation works. You enact the scientist enacting the Mars rover :).
Three comments:
1) There is still a limited-participation detached notion, for my taste, in how you name the third level: perspectival. The metaphor is "looking" whereas my instincts would call it something like immersive, including touching and feeling also my internal state.
2) In some way I would like to have more focus on the procedural level because that is the only place where I can do something about anything. The imaginal is only one way to make myself do something transformative, an important one, good marketers actually know this very well. But there are others, from social causes to pure curiosity-driven exploration. I do because I can. Take this with a grain of salt, I am both scoring high on openness and enjoying contact-based transformative experiences very much, so generalization may not follow.
3) Getting a taste of curiosity-driven transformation can actually be self-perpetuating: I can fall in love with the transformational process itself, getting skilled at the meta-perspectival, having an acceleration term in the reciprocal broadening.
- Prof. John Vervaeke : "...that is predictive of meaning in life come out of our procedural knowing, perspectival knowing and participatory knowing "
- Public : * *takes notes* *
Está es la mejor introducción que le han hecho a mi sensei online 👍🏼. Que privilegio señores!
Thank you 🙏
This was an amazing talk John. The only thing I wish, was that your concepts weren’t so rich at times, or that the people in the crowd had prerequisite knowledge of your work. I heard some people in post lecture questions were struggling with understanding your work, and your answered always tap into your lexicon. I feel as though you really try to answer the question in the most technical way possible, where in this format decomplexifying and using heuristics might be more appropriate so people get a better sense of the ideas. Still overjoyed you got to speak to so many (and even politicians) and you are still growing!
Thanks CL I will try to be less technical. It is difficult to be precise and not technical but I get your point.
In for a treat here :)
Wonderful 👏
1:21:18 “Except for the octopus…. Which is freaking weird.”
I think the word alien would apply to the octopi
Oh my, for a brief moment I thought that I just spotted Ian Nepomniachtchi at 1:46:30 just slightly left from JV 😂
Highly interesting talk and what a gift Johns unique perspective and insight is to the world.
How has Lex Fridman not interviewed John yet?
Hey John. This is the talk that was up on Vimeo yes? Just on your channel now?
Yes that is correct.
@@johnvervaeke ❤️
I loved being taken to the far reaches of Mars context to better understand the inner workings of knowing! Thank you, John!
Thanks so much John. Great to see the dialogue post talk - some extraordinary stuff. Love to hear your full defence of a wider concept of "knowledge". Does anyone know of a/some AFTMC reading lists? Gotta have go at L A Paul!
👏👏👏👏
Naval gazing
👍 👍
I finally understood a little better the distincition between perspectival and participatory knowing, that was much more opaque to me before. Still, I don't have the participatory 100% clear yet.
Is it right to say that to have participary knowledge would be to have a procedural knowledge about how to be in the perspective required by a certain role?
In my notes I have 'lived truth as propositional, depending on fitness to purpose (procedural) which depends on perspectival (what it's like to be in that situation) giving a sort of safe space to then experiment beyond inferential rationality, into the participatory space of virtuous behavior and a meta virtue of wisdom'. I think you're saying participatory knowledge instead of knowing, procedural knowledge is right though and there's something about "how to be in the perspective required" which seems more like propositional than a perspectival knowing giving a safe space..if that's right. The danger is in the proposition and perspective becoming too closely aligned with a removal from participatory knowing, since one's own world is simplified.
...I wonder what make them all instances of "Knowledge" ? Is John using some kind of pragmatic definition of knowledge? - i.e useful beliefs
@@socraticsceptic8047 That's a great question. Perhaps the different "objects" as different knowledge are similar when not apprehended by the knowledge process. Where does the depending part come from, maybe one part is this internal need, call it give and take of homeostasis. This is all in relation to a person of course.
If the world external to an organism also has the same give and take set, and the two sets interact, let's say there's trivial need and strong dependence. With say three sets of interaction for higher order organisms, this might go in the other direction of essential needs and weak dependence, being able to remove from context as "consciousness".
So I guess useful beliefs as providing homeostasis for higher organisms. The beliefs themselves as temporary objects that are used to balance.
This ties to why it has to flow from propositional to procedural to perspective to participatory since the middle two are about forming what are supposed to be temporary objects but when simplified to only those two (mostly) the "object" seems reinforced which unbalances. The propositional and participatory are objects in different spaces (two sets of give and take) that seems to need this third, the set of give and take between two temporary objects of procedural and perspectival.
That way it can be both stable and dynamic, I guess.
@@projectmalus Thanks for the reply - however I am struggling to follow you...what does this mean?: "Perhaps the different "objects" as different knowledge are similar when not apprehended by the knowledge process. "
@@socraticsceptic8047 I think knowledge points to "the output of some process or the process itself (cognition or motion) by which we come in contact with reality" when John talks about it. I might be seriously wrong but this is how I think about it.
I wish I could understand this - the terminology is new to me. What is propositional? I will listen again.
Do moderns unknowingly enact sympathetic magic in daily ritual and meaning-making?
Top draw.
4:05 To skip introduction
I actually have a question and thought I’ll try since I can see you are checking the comments 🙂 As far as I can tell in my own phenomenological observations the imaginal is the basis for all conscious perception. In other words it seems to me that the faculty of imagination with real time feedback **is** the ‘world’ we perceive. Is this a mistaken notion?
No it is not a mistaken notion. In other places are argue that both deep learning and predictive processing posit that the imaginal is integral to perception.
@@johnvervaeke Thank you for taking the time to answer John. I would love it if at some point in the future you post more lectures or conversations on the imaginal. Keep up the great work 🙏
Before i get to the past 😂
Has anyone else imagined themselves as their car, like these Mars rover pilots? Traveling down the highway, needing repairs, etm.
Not quite the same, but when i go running I'll sometimes think of myself as "shifting gears" changing my breathing pattern and cadence
Is what actors do the same thing as what the scientists trying to be a part of the Mars Rover program were doing?
what he's talking about at 25:47 is what Kant called purposiveness
I think you would find iain mcgilchrists work very interesting, so many parallels
We have spoken and recorded a video together.
@@johnvervaeke i should have known, thanks ive found it
Who’s the member of the House of Lords who asks a question?
YEA? "EVERY WISH FULFILLED" E.T.
4:40
"Doing feild-work" is being a certain sort of technician who can operate an instrument effectively and efficiently and accurately. That's not "doing science". The scientist can sit next to the technician and tell the technician what to do with the instrument. So the technician need not "know how to do science".