Emergence and Narrative - Vervaeke, Vanderklay, Pageau
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2020
- John Vervaeke, Paul Vanderklay and myself discuss the question of the meaning crisis, the reality of emergence/emanation and the value of narrative. This conversation brought about many elements we have not discussed before in our one our previous encounters.
Paul Vanderklay's channel: / paulvanderklay
John Vervaeke: / johnvervaeke
Merch: teespring.com/stores/the-symb...
Support this channel:
thesymbolicworld.com/support/
patreon: / pageauvideos
subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/jonatha...
paypal: www.paypal.me/JonathanPageau
My links:
Clips Channel: / @jonathanpageauclips
French Channel: / jonathan pageau - fran...
Website and blog: www.thesymbolicworld.com
facebook: / thesymbolicworld
twitter: / pageaujonathan
Bitchute: www.bitchute.com/channel/page...
Dtube: steemit.com/@symbolism
The unofficial facebook discussion group:
/ 1989208418065298
The outro to my videos was written by Matthew Wilkinson
My website designers, Anomalist Design: www.anomalistdesign.com/
The music at the opening is Russian Eastern Overture, by Rimsky Korsakov.
Oxygen: "Hey Hydrogen, do you believe in water"?
Hydrogen: "I'm agnostic about it. Seems far fetched and sensational that something like water could exist. Just a fairytale for baby molecules".
Oxygen: "You may be right. How could we even begin to explain this transcendent realm with these strange qualities of wetness and liquid. I mean it would be amazing, but I guess we'll never know".
Hydrogen: "The old and wise molecules say that water can be realized through a deep communion between me and you. Want to give it a shot"?
Is this an adaptation of a kilgore trout (kurt vonnegut) quote? Where yeast contemplate their existence of eating sugar and suffocating in their own shit while making bread...
I'm not sure I'm going to get through this whole video. Would you be willing to explain how this idea relates to this discussion?
@@Jacob-fd9nm here's a video I did that gives some more context
ua-cam.com/video/kUGe74jMHsE/v-deo.html
Amazing. I also could not stop thinking about the Trinity. The Christian idea that the best conception of the divine (though all are insufficient) is a communion of persons in love. Of course, even this conversation has three persons, who seem to love one another in some way at least.
Great analogy
I love how all three of you give a different title for the same discussion:
JP: Emergence and Narrative
JV: Dialogos from the depths to the heights
PV: The Reunion of Emanation and Emergence
This was an absolutely phenomenal conversation. You guys are all amazing, and conversations like this are exactly why I think you're all on the frontiers of something extremely important.
Thank you Jonathan for 55:00 "The story is always a breakdown in meaning... A story is a breakdown of meaning and then a recapturing of meaning in a different manner" I'm not religious but I have been fascinated the last couple of years by the universality of those patterns and stories across cultures. That sentence is a Great summary of what I have been so fascinated by!
Jonathan Pageau, you kicked my brain out!!! Amazing points about Christ revelation. Your cosmic image with this conversation gained another level of understanding. This 2 hours passed by like a spring breeze. God bless you for this impressive work! Also John bringing together ancient wisdom and modern science. Lovely talk guys!
Yes, finally!
Vervaeke speaking at 50:00 about how CBT helps you accept that there is no story in the horrible thing that happened to you... incredibly depressing. Makes me very glad I am an Orthodox Christian. Everything, no matter how awful, has purpose. That answer in itself causes confusion for some people, but I guarantee it's still better than no meaning.
there goes my next 2 hours
Pageau and Vanderklay are two of the most warm and earnest folks on the net today, and their dynamic is perfect. Vanderklay is an obvious optimist and has a very humorous and wistful personality, and Pageau is more sober and academic in his approach. They're a dream team:)
I think Vervaeke is even warmer
Oh my god im so excited! Was just wishing to myself as I take a long walk that there were more conversations between Jonathan and Paul available, since I love these conversations but have already listened to them all. Then as I open up the page with all of Jonathan’s uploads to find something to listen to, lo and behold I find a new Jonathan-Paul conversation, PLUS who else but John Vervaeke, whose whole lecture series on the meaning crisis I just finished recently. Definitely feels like a gift from God, when I saw it I shouted “thank you lord!” to the heavens like some vagrant lunatic! Yessss!
This has been one of the best things I have ever listened to on UA-cam, EVER! (and I've listened to 200+ hrs of Peterson)
JP: story is inevitable
JV: stories give rise to conflict
If these two statements are true, we should use common sense. The solution is neither to discard story, nor to leave stories to their own, in endless cycles of violence. There must instead be a story that fits all, and everyone of good will has the duty to find it.
And than Christ said: That was why I came to earth, established communion and love one another as I loved you.
@@rodrigodarosa yes!!!
I don't think I have ever been this excited to watch a youtube video! My three favourite minds together!
Refreshing. Thank you for conversing and posting.
I using Jonathan’s words, its a trip to listen to y’all put sentences together like you do. Love it
Amazing discussion gentlemen. Thank you.
Thank you for this beautiful gift. It is deeply appreciated.
I'd like to express my gratitude again for John Vervake's work and effort specifically in regards to 'Awakening From The Meaning Crisis' lectures series. Gratitude to all 3 of you for dialogues like this. I'm not sure if Mr. Vervaeke intended for people like me to have a specific impact as to discover the Christian tradition in the way he has. But I am completing my Sacraments and have been attending Catholic Mass since finishing his series with the conclusion that I can't seem to find a more sophisticated model for spiritual practice and participation. God Bless.
What an extraordinary conversation!
Good stuff, very esoteric/abstract in places, would be nice to have a primer on the terms commonly used. I'm barely grasping pieces here and there, but I know there is something deeply important being discussed so I keep listening on and hopefully some understanding will come about for me.
Verveake's lecture series is a real rabbit hole - you will find conversations with normal people very unsatisfying having been to wonder land and back.
Basically hang around these channels, use google a lot & it will click with you in time.
Also, this is not hard only because the vocabulary is hard. It's hard because AFAIK, what we're hearing here is attempts to square cognitive psychology, Christianity & other religion's views/ ontology of what things are/ how they work. This is seriously advanced stuff, needles to say :D
Most of us don't get our eureka moment until we hear something being "hammered in shape", in our heads, through multiple attempts, if we get that eureka at all
hang on, it goes deeper.
Probably one of the best conversations yet. Success in motivating me to attend the 2021 live event.
I like John's point, that if we focus on the grammar of dialogue, some kind of truth, should both emerge and emanate, without seeking via confirmation bias.
Great talk, amazing... Vervaeke needs to understand that loving your neighbour and loving God are not different commandments... They are one.
Still the best conversation between the three of you, even a couple of years later
Regarding Jonathan's statement at 58:28 concerning the "biggest mystery of all" : another way of formulating it is as the transformation of the epistemological limitation which appears to separate the Subject from the Absolute into ontological incompleteness, where the gap between the immanent (breakdown of meaning) and transcendent (transcendence of/ultimate meaning) is inherent in the transcendent.
To join this idea to the failure of narrative, as Jonathan mentions, the failure of the narrative is part of the narrative itself, and arguably the ultimate narrative is that of narrative failure as such, and is nothing but this failure. It is not the content of the narrative which reconciles the failure of narrative, but the narrative form itself.
I think the following quote outlines this nicely. I have to make it a bit lengthy in order to render it in its full context. Apologies.
---
“Hölderlin's starting point is the gap between (the impossible return to) the traditional organic unity and the modern reflexive freedom: we are, as finite, discursive, self-conscious subjects cast out of oneness with the whole of being to which we nevertheless long to return, yet without sacrificing our independence-how are we to overcome this gap? His answer is what he calls the "eccentric path": the split between substance and subjectivity, Being and reflection, is insurmountable, and the only reconciliation possible is a narrative one, that of the subject telling the story of his endless oscillation between the two poles. While the content remains non-reconciled, reconciliation occurs in the narrative form itself-the exact inverse of the logical assertion of the subject's identity (I = I) where the very form (division, redoubling, of the I's) undermines content (identity).
Hölderlin's solution should be put in its context and conceived as one of the three versions of how to solve the same problem-the gap between subjective autonomy and the organic Whole that characterizes modernity; the other two versions are Schiller's and Schlegel's. For Schiller, free human life within nature and culture is possible if it achieves that kind of internal organization, determination from within, or harmony of parts that is characteristic of both natural and artistic beauty. In a beautiful natural object, we find, as it were, "the person of the thing" [this might be of interest to Paul]; we have a sense of "the free consent of the thing to its technique" and of "a rule which is at once given and obeyed by the thing;' and this is a model for the free consent of an individual to the worth of a social repertoire or way of life. Friedrich Schlegel, on the contrary, seeks to enact a kind of imperfect yet always energetic freedom in continuous, ironic, witty, self-revising activity that characterizes romantic poetry-a kind of commitment to eternal restlessness. It is easy to see how these three positions form a kind of triangle: Schiller-Schlegel-Hölderlin. Schiller believes in the subject's integration into the organic substantial order-free selfhood can wholly appear in beautiful nature and art; Schlegel asserts the force of subjectivity as the constant unsettling of any substantial harmony (one can claim that, in German Idealism, this opposition repeats itself in the guise of Schelling versus Fichtethe positivity of the Ur-Grund prior to reflection versus the "eternal restlessness" of subjectivity).
Hegel occupies here a fourth position-what he adds to Hölderlin is a purely formal shift of transposing the tragic gap that separates the reflecting subject from pre-reflexive Being into this Being itself. Once we do this, the problem becomes its own solution: it is our very division from absolute Being which unites us with it, since this division is immanent to Being. Already in Hölderlin, division is redoubled, self-relating: the ultimate division is not the Subject-Object division, but the very division between division (of Subject-Object) and unity. One should thus supplement the formula of "identity of identity and non-identity" with "division between division and non-division." Once we accomplish this step, Being as the inaccessible pre-reflexive Ground disappears; more precisely, it reveals itself as the ultimate reflexive category, as the result of the self-relating division: Being emerges when division divides itself from itself. Or, to put it in Hölderlin's terms, the narrative is not merely the subject coping with its division from Being, it is simultaneously the story Being is telling itself about itself. The loss supplemented by the narrative is inscribed into Being itself which means that the last distinction on which Hölderlin insists, the one between intellectual intuition (the immediate access to Being, the subject's direct one-ness with it) and the "eccentric" narrative path (that mediates access to Being through narrative reconciliation), has to fall: the narrative already does the job of intellectual intuition, of uniting us with Being. Or, in more paradoxical terms: the standard relationship between the two terms should be turned around. It is intellectual intuition which is merely a reflexive category, separating us from Being in its very enacting of the subject's immediate one-ness with Being, and it is the narrative path which directly renders the life of Being itself:
“That "the truth is the whole" means that we should not look at the process that is
self-manifestation as a deprivation of the original Being. Nor should we look at it
only as an ascent to the highest. The process is already the highest ... The subject
for Hegel is ... nothing but the active relationship to itself. In the subject there is
nothing underlying its self-reference, there is only the self-reference. For this reason,
there is only the process and nothing underlying it. Philosophical and metaphorical
models such as "emanation" (neo-Platonism) or "expression" (Spinozism) present
the relationship between the infinite and the finite in a way that fails to characterize
what the process (self-manifestation) is.”
Henrich, D. Between Kant and Hegel, p. 289-90”
Zizek, S. Less Than Nothing. p.14-16
---
As far as I can see (which isn't very far, but oh well), the division between division and unity is the most primal/fundamental quantum of reality, from which everything else follows.
As a side note, the veil, mentioned at around 1:04:22, is how something can be created out of nothing ("a covering which manifests that which is beyond it"). If a veil is placed into nothing, where nothing is on either side of the veil, then the veil effectively generates the appearance of something on the other side of the veil. When operating at the ontological level, the appearance of Being is indistinguishable from actual Being, and the veil (that which divides) which operates at the ontological level is the redoubled division between division and unity. It is division as such operating on the void which generates all of reality.
I only read your first statement and a bit of the text below. Saying that it is not a matter of the content of the story but the story itself, that gives the realisation of truth. Is this right?
However, is not the historical resurrection and ascension part of the story? If it is granted, is it not good news? That the content does not end in failure, but that it corresponds with the whole counsel of God. The truth of the story as a whole or story itself without its content is the same truth of the truth realisation of the end of the story, which was prophesied from the beginning of the story.
1:33:30 (for John's question), 1:34:23 (for Jonathan's analogy between dialog and dance)
I really loved the description Jonathan gave of your dialog as a kind of dance, this being a manner in which the absolute (God) discloses himself through the conversation and in which you commune with each other (and, I might add, we as listeners can be drawn into this communion as well). The description of the dance strongly resonates with Christian talk of the "perichoresis" (dancing around each other) of the three divine persons as a description of their infinite communion in love.
Regarding the question - that John raised and to which Jonathan responded with his description - of whether "story" or "dialog" is a more fitting analogy of the absolute: Like Jonathan, I think that these are not mutually exclusive. To my mind, whatever is truly beautiful speaks of God, and clearly this open, non-judgmental, explorative, creative and respectful conversation is something wonderful. I do think dialog like this is ultimately a manifestation of love, allowing everyone to freely express themselves while being at the same time deeply at peace with each other (and not in a dull way, but actually a very interesting way that draws out exciting new ideas).
However, I do not think conversations like these outside of a "story", of concrete situations and motivations to move to a better place (or even "from glory to glory") make much sense - what would be there to talk about? And I think many of us experience stories as something truly beautiful in their own right. I guess another way to say this would be: Story can be part of dialog just as well as dialog can be part of a story. I do not see any kind of conflict here, just the richness of the love and glory of God drawing us in and making all kinds of gifts that we are meant to share.
And with that being said: Thanks very much for sharing this wonderful conversation and all the inspired work you do! I am very grateful for all I could learn from the three of you, and this includes the manner of conversation just as much as the actual content. May God bless you and allow all your good seeds to come to fruition.
1:57:12 There were numerous occasions in the video where I also wondered, "Why hasn't he said that before?". Very illuminating discussion, thank you for doing and sharing this!
ah! great talk! such a beautiful example of communion. for me it really picks up around the hour mark so i’d say stick with it if ur on the fence
John’s hesitancy over narrative-that he sees stories as “finite games” because they have endings-is perhaps addressed in GK Chesterton’s theology of God’s relationship to surprise and nonsense...
“Chesterton’s fundamental attitude as a poet, as a theologian, was that even God needs a surprise and, of course, for that very reason endowed angels and men with the mystery of free will: so that they would do things that would be surprising and that could not be foretold….
Chesterton’s idea was that the universe is so arranged that it is, basically, the Lord’s own way of surprising himself. Because that’s what you would do if you were God, if you really think it through.
…we must admit in the end that we don’t want a situation in which everything is completely controlled. In other words, if everything is rationalized, if everything is perfectly logical and clear, and it all works, and there’s no possibility of anybody making a mistake, and we know exactly what’s going to happen forever and ever and ever, we’d be bored to death. Nobody wants that kind of heaven. So what kind of heaven would you like?
…[Chesterton] realized that the world created by God is a form of nonsense and that one of the most important features of the divine mind is humor… that the attitude of heaven is not serious.
…See, our trouble is that, where we really get into difficulty in life is that we expect everything to make sense. And then we get disappointed. We expect, for example, that time is going to solve our problems, that there’s going to come a day in the future when we will be finally satisfied. And so things make sense-we say of something “it is sensible,” “it is satisfactory,” “it is good,” because we feel it has a future, it’s going to get somewhere, and we’re going to arrive. Our whole education is programmed with the idea that there is a good time coming, when we are going to arrive, we’re going to be there.
And perhaps the universe doesn’t work that way at all. Maybe, instead of that, this world is like music, where the goal of music is certainly not in the future. You don’t play a symphony in order to reach the end of the symphony. Because then the best orchestra would be the one that played the fastest. You don’t dance in order to arrive at a particular place on the floor. So Chesterton’s view of the world is an essentially musical view, a dancing view of the world, in which the object of the creation is not some far-off divine event which is the goal, but the object of the creation is the kind of musicality of it, the very nonsense of it as it unfolds.
…God himself is dancing. He’s playing.”
(Alan Watts’ talk on Chesterton)
www.organism.earth/library/document/on-g-k-chesterton
I was going to say.... Alan Watts said that. Great post.
So good.
And in a gnostic text (the Acts of John) Jesus says: "He who does not dance does not know what happens"
Projecting human deficiencies on God and then assuming they are Gods?
I love this, though a small footnote: The inherent problem with this theology is how it a) undermines the omnipotence of God, and b) posits God within the framework of linear time. If God is beyond time, which we should concluded given that He is both all powerful and the creator of it, for all intents and purposes, than what is to come is already known. The logical question that follows, is how does freewill map onto a reality where God knows the end? Well, what is known by God, is dependant on my freewill. That is the dance. It's not in the not knowing, but rather, that interplay between my freewill and the future. So, God knew that I would write this comment, but only because I'm writing it. If I had chosen not to write it, His foreknowledge would be that I did not write it. His foreknowledge is dependent on my freewill.
Pageau respectfully checked out for like the last 20mins. He just let the other two wonder in the dark. Funny guy and respectful.
I wonder if someone from the clips channel can do a video on 54:25 through about 59:35. I'm glad I hung into this over-my-head esotericism just to get this. It is scuch important info for me as a survivor of a traumatic, fragmented life history. I've spent my entire adult life struggling to create a "correct" narrative that encompasses all that happened unsuccessfully. It would be very helpful to others in my situation as well. It could be titled something along the lines of meaning and trauma, or something.
Man I really love these discussions, but boy howdy do I ever need to bring my listening A-game to get through them.
Excellent! Keep the "dialogos" going.
Thanks
11:34 Aw Joshua got a mention :P
This starts quite slow, but was actually really really epic.
I liked the point about the meaning only being realized post-narrative, (so it makes no sense to ask what is the meaning of ....X....? because the meaning will always reveal itself after the fact, perhaps much later in time, but not during the story)
and I also liked the idea that there is just one story, just variants on the same theme.
I particularly liked the observation about war being a battle over stories, yes, that is exactly what it is. All war is religious war over which and whose story we believe in and follow. The better we can do in reconciling the stories and going "beyond narrative" into the therapeutic "one meta-story" or even "non-narrative" or "post-narrative" world, the better we might get along.
@@tensevo Sadly there won't be a post-narrative world, as Jonathan said, you need to hold on to your particular narrative until the end. The only post-narrative world is the eschaton.
Wow what an amazing dialogue, thank you. I have a sense that the disagreeement between John and Jonathan is whether there is an ultimate pattern to reality (Jonathan's positition) or if the pattern is ever-evolving and sort of more dynamic (John's position).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. My mind, being simple, goes to Tennyson's words:
"Our little systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be; they are but broken lights of Thee; and Thou, O Lord art more than they." We can invent our own religions, but they ultimately don't satisfy. Ontario, Canada
Ken Wilber’s saying ‘transcend and include’ resonates here, each stage builds on the next where it goes wrong is when we transcend and exclude
Sometimes there is struggle to actually put in words what you want to say (you in plural), but the level of discourse is high enough that it's to be expected!
Pageau is making stacks this morning! There are too many ads to watch the conversation. EDIT: This conversation is also available ad free on his guests channels.
I am not aware of this. How many ads on here? I don't see them when I play it.
@@JonathanPageau There is an ad every 3 minutes at most, but only on the first half!
Think I have fixed it now
This should be gooooood
The fact this has only 7k views disturbs me but it's also 7k reasons to be joyous
Well said! And a well told story that contributes to keeping the future open to meaningful possibilities...
Vervaeke and Vanderklay are to Pageau what de Gea and Oblak are to Manuel Neuer. They’re really strong, but man, his recent showings have been on another level.
All kidding aside, I like listening to all three. Vervaeke‘s parts reminded me of the Peripatetics. When he thinks, you can hear him walk ;-)
Peace
Horizontal and vertical - got it!!
I'm surprised that the 3 of you could keep it under 2 hours!🤣
I could, of course, watch 2 days of you guys talking...
"we like dualities because they focus things for us" he said it as an aside, but it is critical
Reconciling the emergence of quantum theory with the emanation of general relativity, is the theory of everything that is sought by physicists to this day.
Thank you guys. I've commented this already on other videos, but you should really see Stephen Wolfram's physics project. His theory of the universe not only agrees with both general relativity and quantum mechanics but with everything you are talking about.
It’s a party up in here!
Wow, you guys almost have the full cast. Just missing Jordan
Yea it was strange. Watching the video I couldn't help but notice PVK's JBP Sort Yourself Out Syrup poster in the background. Felt like the spectre of Peterson was in the ether...
1:06:00 Forgive my Greek OCD, but it is διάλογος, with the accent on the alpha.
@1:24:00
The Promised Land is a cosmic mountain with a parabolic peak.
I appreciate what John Vervaekeis trying to do (join science and symbolism) and I fear this will only be possible when symbolism formulates a way to overcome confirmation bias.
can you elaborate?, that sounds super interesting.
@@conexionneuronal8820 It seems to me that the scientific method has built in mechanisms which purpose is to overcome biases, in particular confirmation bias (arguably, without ever completely succeeding). It doesn't seem that any of the symbolic that I see in Vervaeke's or Pageau's approach has any such mechanism.
If that is the case, I see it as a core difference that would prevent any joining of the two.
If symbolism equips itself with such bias overcoming mechanism, then the joining of the two might be possible... And one could even argue that if symbolism equips itself with such mechanisms... Then symbolism will become pretty much indistinguishable from science...
@@MrGustavier great comment. From what I've seen Vervaeke tries really hard to overcome that bias, he's very open to critiques of his work, and has actually integrated many of his critiques into his thinking; Pageau, unfortunately, doesn't have that mechanism, he's a committed Christian, I'm not saying that's wrong but as a result of his Christianity he's less open, he seems to be incorporating Vervaeke lexicon to appeal to more people, but I don't see him changing his world view as a result of these conversations; however I've seen Vervaeke having profound insights (minor changes in world view) online, during these conversations. I was a scientist, Vervaeke is a scientist, so obviously I have more affinity for him than Pageau or Vanderclay, sometimes I cannot believe how open and patient he's with theologians and religious people that have a limited understanding of cognitive neuroscience and psychology (my field), I think this is his greatest asset because scientists normally are not open to these ideas at all.
@@conexionneuronal8820 I think we are in agreement. I find myself more often than not opposed to scientific realists, who think science actually DOES overcome biases, and therefore gives some sort of _"absolute"_ knowledge, deprived of all the shortcomings of the scientific method that have been highlighted by the philosophers of science and scientists themselves throughout time.
However, I still think we should seek to eliminate biases. That "the least biases, the better epistemology".
Pageau almost seems to be sort of embracing his biases, with the hope/conviction that something good will come out of it (with a sort of mixing of ethics and epistemology).
I think it is pretty clear from this conversation that 3 quite different belief systems can live very harmoniously.
Awesome conversation!! Congratulations! Please have microphones match. Sound quality is difficult with John V.
38:50 "It's also eschatological -- in the sense that it doesn't happen in the story. The story *leads* to it."
Can anyone provide a reading list for the books mentioned in the discussion?
Paul says @14:20, " Christians, of course, resisted - resisted - resisted, but while you're resisting you're also accommodating", when referring to “Pagans and Christians in the City" by Steven D. Smith.
I would like to hear you guys discuss the varying translations of the "but if not" syntax in Daniel 3:18 which I think bears very significantly on this conversation.
In order to grasp my point, just look up Daniel 3:18 on the biblehub app parallel translations page and see if you can spot where contemporary Christendom might be missing the point of the story.
that part at the end where Jonathan says about the knowledge being pulled out of him, it's like a person is a spinning top that has broad facets around the middle horizontal able to go to finer cut facets as interaction sets increase in complexity. For instance at a standup comedy show the audience orients that facet from the commons as clapping and laughing repetitions, which allows the outrageous assertion. So the Logos as Nature and Logos as recorded knowledge of that is shared in a broad facet, while returning that energy to Nature intelligence requires the finer facets asserted which allows the vitality dimension. The trick is to get rid of harmful elements of culture to keep that culture, like keep the fun party and get rid of (or minimize) the carcinogenic booze.
Will said Assisi Institute lecture be uploaded?
Post-modernism works as a deconstruction, which can be therapeutic, if it is in the service of seeing a broader, higher level pattern.
The loss of narrative and the need for a new narrative... Is the narrative.
When the bottom tries to become the top reality falls apart.
Vervaeke should read orthodoxy and the religion of the future by Fr. Seraphim Rose
John - what is the purpose for a scientific paradigm that sees things in non-teleological terms? When you ask about whether two things can be reconciled you are pointing at a third thing - the paradigm of the reconciliation. In reality they are both part of one thing - reality. A non-teleological paradigm actually can only exist within a reality capable of having as part of its purpose that possibility of a non-teleological paradigm.
Can you explain why?
I actually think John is mistaken about this. The notion of science as a non-teleological paradigm that is purely objective is just part of the current mythology of science that prevails among academics. However, the whole foundation of science is built on the vague and nearly always unstated presupposition that truth is an inherent good, and that science is the only way to reveal said truth. In reality science is always taking place within a value structure and is guided by human values as much as any other human process.
Yes a paradigmatic shift, back to formal causuality.
Narratives are the means by which we colonise reality. We claim to have colonised much of reality, but our limited perception is continually being mugged by that which breaks into our garden.
Gotta believe in somethin...even if it's nothin...
PS: But seriously folks...that was some serious talk!
According to Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, the cosmic revelation of the God-aspect of Krishna to Arjuna on the battlefield is the veil. The bosom companion that Arjuna always knew is the "real" Krishna. There are only stories and reality is ultimately personal. I think we need to see ourselves as inhabiting an open, ongoing narrative. There is no "finished" story to tell, and no complete story that can close the book.
50:15 one thing is not knowing the narrative of why this or that happened and another thing is to say that there is no narrative. Because then if there is no narrative in certain occasions, giving a narrative on others, places the narrator above the events, really as creators of the narratives, instead of interpreters. So that the narrator can give any arbitrary meaning to what he wants and leave others events as meaningless, since his imagination cannot grasp it or rather because presumes that knows that they are meaningless. Yet he is still in need of giving an account for holding such a position.
54:40 "*The* narrative, *the* story, the only story, is the breakdown in meaning. The story is *always* a breakdown in meaning."
My friend we are not supposed to be angry on the actors in politics, we are meant to forgive and come together. And this is best achieved if we are not angry on each other, we need to talk and solve things out peacefully. Yes we need to demand change but this is just what they’re trying to get us to do. The anger on politics today is just part of the programming, we are forgetting who we are through the pain we inflict on ourselves. I was just as angry as you are on these actors but we shouldn’t hold tribunals or hang them. This is exactly where we are being led and this is part of the programming as well, we are meant to see where we are being led, they want us to see that and see how we are being manipulated. We are meant to work together and love each other because we are all a reflection of each other, we cant help but love ourselves and so its also the right thing to love everyone because you have to love yourself so that you don’t hurt yourself and feel better. We are not meant to hate ourselves. So we are also not meant to hate others. We are not meant to hurt ourselves but to be alive and focus on the things that make us feel alive, diminish the things in ourselves that hurt us and make us feel less alive. If you learn to feel what hurts you you know which emotions to focus on and which you should not. Saving your child is about saving it from the snake that is trying to bite. Its like we are in a war of live and death and this is also carried out inside our mind and our heart. Realize which emotions stand for life and which doesn’t. We are here to learn to know ourselves. This anger on politicians today isn’t seen without good reason, we loose ourselves because we are forgetting who we really are. We are hurting ourselves and we are just meant to realize that. When you know yourself you know how others are.. and partly we are here to get to know ourselves and learn to know ourselves, if you do that you’ll realize that its something all of us would do to get us to wake up. Its like putting on a mask and playing the fool and the funny comedian and hoping your other self realized what you are trying and sees through your deception. Its like we are living on 1st of april everyday! if we knew ourselves we wouldn’t inflict so much pain on each other and ourselves, so we kind of lost our place here. My friend the polticians nowadays must hurt themselves aswell, they might not live in eden, when i look at things like chemtrails they can‘t really like it aswell because if they did they are also living in a reality where they are hurting themselves and others, and nature which is also just a reflection of ourselves. We don’t want to destroy ourselves and we are not here for that and we surely don’t want to destroy our paradise. We are meant to learn and learn out of what happened so we don’t do it again and they want this aswell, this is why they’re doing what they’re doing. They want us to see how far things can go, to learn out of it and not do it again. Its also about realizing what hurts you, so you can learn to work on yourself and change the things that hurt you, change your reality, your personal eden, so you’re not hurt by the things that hurt you in the past. We need to put on an armor so we are not so easily affected by negative things happening in the outside because then its easier for us to change these things for the better. We can see to it to get affectrd by thr positive things.. we can show some anger but it needs to be the reighteouss one trying to stop pain and death and not inflict it. But know that also with this kind of anger you are hurting yourself, we feel best in love, forgiveness and happiness its as simple as that. If you ask me politicians nowadays just want to invoke and provoke some consciousness, they’re not bad people but we are put to sleep and they just want us to wake up and see through the lies and illusions. That might be exactly what they’re trying to achieve. We are also meant to see the beautiful illusion we are standing on, because we arent descendants from apes we are children of god and this eden is flat 😄😂 they closed off antarctica from us and all countries signed and are in on the treaty, you could ask the question why that is. I ask myself the question if its because we‘d find out who we are and where we are. We are beautiful individuals living on beautiful eden. When we see the contribution everyone has to offer we are able to lift us up together more easily. We can lift us up or drag us down together, we‘re all on the same boat. Yes these systems don’t support life but we are just meant to see that and they just want us to learn for the future.. Eden is also about developing your inner garden, to create the reality that makes you feel more alive and less angry, sad and fearful because you’re just hurting yourself with those emotions. Its about learning to help ourselves and building and gaining that knowledge that can help us. And partly we might all find and reach the same conclusions because we are all the same. So the answer is to love others as well because they are just another yourself. We can believe many things that are not true, we may be able to believe in literally anything but we can also know and we all know the same because we are. We are all a reflection of each other, so is the earth we are standing on. We can see ourselves in others and in nature. The earth is round and everything is in that circle. We can see that circle in vegetables or trees 🌳 we can also see it in our five hands and in our body (look at leonardo da vincis painting for instance) Just like we have to love god because he made us in his own image. You are the creator of your own reality and you can change it however you choose, this is also what the politicians are doing. They know themselves and know exactly which reality they created for themselves. They might be asking themselves as well which reality to live in and how to structure our earth. The question I ask myself is which reality to live in that makes me feel happier and alive. And even that is a learning process. Its about knowing and loving, trusting and accepting yourself. You could build yourself a reality where you see everything coming your way as a means to develop yourself, even the negative things. When someone is angry with you, dont be angry see it as an opportunity to further yourself to not get distracted and stay in love and forgive. At least to me this makes me look at things less serious and more helpful, this makes me live in eden more easily. Everyone might just find and know the same things because we are all the same. Like Q says, we are being controlled by being divided, information etc.. they‘re telling us to hold tribunals and think for ourselves..
This is unrelated, but I've always wanted to see Jonathan Pageau present on the symbolism of Persona 5.
What if there is a physical representation of the "breathing" as a narrative?
Is a good example the cataclysms caused by waves of the galactic sheet? 🤔
@1hr:40-~ish
Vervaeke: The point of memory is not an accurate report over the past but an intelligent anticipator of the future.
Modernity picks on the presumptive stability of narratives that are not true. But they’re myopically resentment materialistically focused, whereas as Jonathan Pageau posits, narratives and memories are pattern recognition cliff notes.
a good morning
Read Walter Russell. He nailed this down 100 years ago.
1:44:39
The point of memory is not an accurate reporter of the past but an intelligent anticipator of the future.
1:44:20
A telling of something that happened, or that has been brought into such patterning that it is represented only in universal categories….
….1:45:03 Memory is a patterning mechanism. It is not to remember accurately the things of the past.
Memory is there to recognize the pattern of being so that you can encounter that pattern as it manifest itself somewhere in the world right now.
The meta narrative can also be described physically as a sin wave. Makes sense that everything is 🎶!
1:06:51 I don’t think that the spontaneity as a replacement for the telling the story, really is the case in the conversation. Behind each one there is a narrative accepted. Is not purely spontaneous. Not only that, as Jonathan said, who can say anything beyond the story? To place oneself beyond the story is to be silent as a human being and thus not being who you are, or rather talking spontaneously nonsense.
I really don't get what's the difference between what John and Johnathan says and the Tao ☯️ of Lao Tse. So far am at 1:14:45
timestamps please
The seed and the BLOOD......New.... incuruptable
Logos is like Dao, dialogue is like Yin&Yang. Narrative is like the Trinity.
Pour, pore and poor?
Vervaeke's explanation of emergence and immanence is the Creation of Adam on the ceiling Sistine chapel.
Is mathematics the logos?
@1hr20~ish… @jonathan! Yes!!
The dynamis of heaven is now and the dynamis of hell is now.
Did anyone else pick up on the irony of the cognitive scientist trying to downplay the role of narrative by telling a story of a woman who is hit by a bus?
☦️
"that was cool" ... Lol!
Horizontal en vertical is a cross.
"It's easy to implant false memories in people ... get them to imagine
doing something, come back to them six months ask them if they did
it or not and they're likely to say that they did
....
"The point of memory is not an accurate reporter of the past, but an
intelligent anticipator of the future"
Seems contradictory to say that memories are intelligent anticipators
of the future (or as Jonathan sees it - pattern extractions that help
navigate where you currently are in the pattern), and that a memory
is "false" because it was imagined
Even if it didn't physically happen, it's not a false memory if it helps
you intelligently anticipate the future / navigate where you currently
are in the pattern
Holy crap, I just realized the initials JP JV PV for a paper-chain pattern!
Heh. Heh. Anyway, I just thought that was cool...
1:03:00 the moment John Vervaeke becomes a Christian (start at 1:02:47)
Yes! Loved hearing that “Ohhhh” and seeing the lightbulb go off
Will chaos and destructive forces appear within these emergent levels?
Might we be able to predict and move out of the way of a destructive collapse?
Starting with Vervaeke’s example.
Hydrogen has its own properties, Oxygen has its own properties. 2 hydrogens combine with 1 oxygen and thereby create a new, an emergent, and a stable molecule = H2O.
Even though an emergent molecule, H2O now has its own unique properties. This molecule H2O can now merge with other molecules to form larger emergent structures with their own unique properties. Amino acids, hemoglobin, proteins, etcetera.
We know that large masses of atoms and molecules may form moons, or even larger levels may form planets. These larger and massive systems behave with unique properties. Now influencing each other through forces such as gravity. And so, these systems become part of a larger system, such as a galaxy, which behaves with new rules. As Jonathon says, we know something is out there ahead, but we just don’t know what that next emergent system is.
Complex living systems may depend upon properties which are derived from more than one of these many levels of emergence. Living systems - at one and the same time - may depend upon the properties found in basic atoms such as hydrogen, and oxygen. And at a higher level the water molecule’s properties. And so on to even higher levels, such as amino acids, proteins, etc. And higher still larger systems such as a cardiovascular system, a neurological system, etcetera.
Certainly, humans are an emergent system that depends - at one and the same time - upon the properties found in multiple levels of emergence.
As Jonathon says, we know something is out there, yet ahead. But we just don’t know what it is.
Overall, these processes which have created planets and galaxies as well as human life seem to be both a scalar phenomena, and a fractal phenomena.
Fractal theory introduces the issue of randomness - and chaos.
An avalanche provides an example. Each snowflake behaves with the properties of a snowflake.
Gently piling flake to flake and flake upon flake. Over time, as these flakes pile higher and higher, one may observe the beauty of the gently growing snow mass emerging - flake by flake.
Yet, we know the risk of collapse is greater and greater with each additional flake.
As Jonathon says, we know something - or the potential for something bigger - is out there, yet ahead. But we just don’t know what it is.
However, what we do know is that following the collapse of a destructive snow mass, the structure which takes its place is actually a much more stable structure. If only we can foresee and get out of the way of the snow mass in prudent time, can we survive and find ourselves in a more stable structure post avalanche collapse.
As levels of meaning, and levels of narratives emerge at different points in time, inherent within each of these emergent system is a potential for chaos and destruction. If we can foresee and articulate these processes more clearly, might we be able to predict and move out of the way of a destructive collapse?
Let’s hope. Perhaps that’s the point of the revelations to begin with. I always forget that apocalypse is the revealing of what was previously hidden. The patterns were more hazy perhaps in the past but have become more focused. Now we can see the patterns of collective human behavior. It seems that civilizations have the tendency to concentrate abundant resources into the hands of its inhabitants. Then discipline erodes away and the behavior that concentrates that wealth is forgotten, so the only thing left to do is take what was already created and only the psychopathic have the skills necessary to do that. Then the system collapses for it is no longer sustainable. This can lead to a collapse like Rome or war. But maybe this time the system has become “too big to fail”. So the strongman must establish order and Pageau has indicated in previous videos that this may be the beast. The beast must account for everyone and is a picture of hyper order. It may just be a human pattern and so there is no true antichrist but a series of anti christs and beasts throughout the narrative of human history? And the reign of glory is the shedding of that pattern?
@@GhostofFranky Fascinating points. SO many civilizations have come and gone. Why can't they see the collapse in time to do something constructive? It appears that an ancient Egyptian civilization holds the record for the longest sustained civilization.
Did they actually see their potential for collapse and take action? Or, is their record just an anomaly?
Awooga!
1:24:00 Neil D, in my opinion is a lightweight. Maybe cuz I like M. Kaku more. It's petty of me but I mean yeah, the more you know about the material world, the less you know about the material world. It's missing the forest for the trees.
The more you define something, the more you leave out. That's an old idea. Certainly because it's like tree branch which is like a little version of the larger tree... it's fractal.
Jonathan Pageau is Michael Jordan in his prime out there!
Air Pageau!
Johnathan and Paul, the John Wesley and George Whitefield of the UA-cam Church. Need to figure out who John is, maybe the Holy Spirit, hope that’s not too blasphemous. 🙂.
A PASTOR, A SCIENTIST, and a ARTIST enter a bar.......
The narrative of the political sphere totalising and policing all discourse, is Hegelian, is it not?
p.s. I am deeply disturbed by the shift towards hyper-politicized discourse. That is why I am here.