51:00 I very much appreciate David's point here, often missed in This Little Corner and disregarded as "thinky-talky" stuff or "left-brainism," but - indeed - this has also been my experience: "Thinking is a spiritual experience" (cf. Vervaekian "rationality" vs Sam Harris' "rationality") Your response "I misframed the question" is fantastic too
@TheMeaningCode we are doing wonderfully. The kids are thriving. Shonnie and I are so glad to be coming into spring. So much emergent life at this time of year. How are you?
44 mins: beautiful discussion about John Vervaeke's practices. I think you need a community and practices, and that John's practices can help us improve those in our communities of faith. On the other hand, it might be difficult to built lasting intergenerational communities around John's philosophy and practices.
17:24 I'm not sure we can attribute this directly to Pageau (who by the way also is influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius) In the ARC talk he said: _"What it is that we place as the highest good, that which is placed above us as our guiding star, as the thing that pulls us forward into its good, is indistinguishable from a God. Just like a god, that supreme value will drive us towards it, will subjugate all things to it, and the type of attention it will receive will be indistinguishable from worship. And if what we put at the top there is not in fact the supreme good, then it will twist reality, it will twist the facts, and it will twist the data into its service."_ Note that he does not say the supreme good is God, but "a" God (it could be the same but isn't so necessarily). And a bit later: _"Of course, safety is a good. It is simply not the supreme good. And it just needs to not pretend to be. And that's all we need. So what is it, right Jonathan? What is the supreme good? And so I'm afraid that this is where the words fail us. Of course, for the good itself is not a good; it is goodness, just like truth itself is not a truth but the mysterious standard by which we measure true statements. And it's the same reason why we notice that beauty is not beautiful. And so the philosophers and the theologians say that the capital-G God is ineffable."_ And finally: _"The supreme good is not money, it's not energy, it's not freedom, it's not family, it's not knowledge, it's not safety, it's not diversity, and it's not inclusion. Though all those things are good, they should never be treated as the supreme good lest they become idols and gods that will tyrannize us. And so the goods must dance together, they play against each other. They have to be put in proper hierarchies where the more encompassing goods, like the virtues, guide the lower goods, like the stuff, with none of the goods completely ruling the others, or else they might become once again vices that will overwhelm you. And so at least for now, I think that even for those who are here or those who are watching this who do not believe and do not worship the supreme ineffable good, at least keep your eyes high and at least always look higher and don't let your sight and your perception stop at the goods that you care about today."_ Clearly there is an implication here that God is the supreme Good (as you suggested in your question), but I'd nonetheless remain careful with quoting it too directly (especially if we leave out the word "supreme" before Good), precisely because of the ineffability. Just a small note :)
I love the trinitarian thinking, the discussion about God as the good and as personal and the absolutizing of what we love (at 47 mins). If you combine these, you could think of the human being as trinitarian being (body, soul and spirit), that loves (eros, philia and agape) the absolute trinity (beauty, goodness and truth). Could it be that the trinitarian nature of people and God explains why the personal re-emergences in the absolute?
There is no stopping you! Wonderful conversation.
wow! you are getting the all the big boys and gals of TLC! wonderful, I am looking forward to listening to you both
51:00 I very much appreciate David's point here, often missed in This Little Corner and disregarded as "thinky-talky" stuff or "left-brainism," but - indeed - this has also been my experience: "Thinking is a spiritual experience"
(cf. Vervaekian "rationality" vs Sam Harris' "rationality")
Your response "I misframed the question" is fantastic too
Great stuff. Thank you.
Your excitement is contagious, Lucas!
Agreed.
Hi again Karen :)
I just discovered Lucas this week and have been so encouraged
@@ourblessedtribe9284 How are you all?
@TheMeaningCode we are doing wonderfully. The kids are thriving. Shonnie and I are so glad to be coming into spring. So much emergent life at this time of year. How are you?
44 mins: beautiful discussion about John Vervaeke's practices. I think you need a community and practices, and that John's practices can help us improve those in our communities of faith. On the other hand, it might be difficult to built lasting intergenerational communities around John's philosophy and practices.
Another remarkable interview!
17:24 I'm not sure we can attribute this directly to Pageau (who by the way also is influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius)
In the ARC talk he said: _"What it is that we place as the highest good, that which is placed above us as our guiding star, as the thing that pulls us forward into its good, is indistinguishable from a God. Just like a god, that supreme value will drive us towards it, will subjugate all things to it, and the type of attention it will receive will be indistinguishable from worship. And if what we put at the top there is not in fact the supreme good, then it will twist reality, it will twist the facts, and it will twist the data into its service."_
Note that he does not say the supreme good is God, but "a" God (it could be the same but isn't so necessarily).
And a bit later: _"Of course, safety is a good. It is simply not the supreme good. And it just needs to not pretend to be. And that's all we need. So what is it, right Jonathan? What is the supreme good? And so I'm afraid that this is where the words fail us. Of course, for the good itself is not a good; it is goodness, just like truth itself is not a truth but the mysterious standard by which we measure true statements. And it's the same reason why we notice that beauty is not beautiful. And so the philosophers and the theologians say that the capital-G God is ineffable."_
And finally: _"The supreme good is not money, it's not energy, it's not freedom, it's not family, it's not knowledge, it's not safety, it's not diversity, and it's not inclusion. Though all those things are good, they should never be treated as the supreme good lest they become idols and gods that will tyrannize us. And so the goods must dance together, they play against each other. They have to be put in proper hierarchies where the more encompassing goods, like the virtues, guide the lower goods, like the stuff, with none of the goods completely ruling the others, or else they might become once again vices that will overwhelm you. And so at least for now, I think that even for those who are here or those who are watching this who do not believe and do not worship the supreme ineffable good, at least keep your eyes high and at least always look higher and don't let your sight and your perception stop at the goods that you care about today."_
Clearly there is an implication here that God is the supreme Good (as you suggested in your question), but I'd nonetheless remain careful with quoting it too directly (especially if we leave out the word "supreme" before Good), precisely because of the ineffability. Just a small note :)
43:15 I especially appreciated David's point about the importance of trust (here with regards to John Vervaeke).
15:14 G.K. Chesterton's _Orthodoxy_ is great, though I did not entirely agree with the criticisms of Nietzsche ;)
I love the trinitarian thinking, the discussion about God as the good and as personal and the absolutizing of what we love (at 47 mins). If you combine these, you could think of the human being as trinitarian being (body, soul and spirit), that loves (eros, philia and agape) the absolute trinity (beauty, goodness and truth). Could it be that the trinitarian nature of people and God explains why the personal re-emergences in the absolute?