Metamodern Spirituality | Debating the Legacy of Modernity for Christianity (w/ Paul VanderKlay)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лип 2024
- In this episode, I assume the modern historical-critical perspective with pastor and 'This Little Corner of the Internet' thinker @PaulVanderKlay to explore the tension points it has with the traditional-devotional lens--and to consider if and how these impasses might be transcended. Does history matter to faith and to the faithful? If so, how, when, and why? Can we avoid equivocating discussions around the "reality" of Christianity? How crucial is the nonrational? Overall, we rehearse what challenges the traditional approach to Christianity faces as it develops into modern expressions and interpretations on the way towards a metamodern instantiation.
0:00 Introduction
0:55 The "God Pivot" and Metamodernism: The Missing Modern
7:39 How Does Faith Relate to Modern & Postmodern Critical Approaches?
24:30 The Reality of Religion in Different Psycho-Social Contexts
36:18 Reality vs. History: Language as Metaphor or Fact
52:38 Worldview, Rationality, and Projection
1:04:28 "Spirit": Substance Reification vs. Transjective Relationality
1:07:22 Avoiding Equivocation and Taking Modern Science Seriously
1:20:59 Pragmatic and Developmental Hermeneutics
1:47:17 Nonrationality and the Meaning Crisis
1:59:15 Different Metamodern Spiritual Arcs: The Theological is Personal
2:16:00 Conclusion
Check out Paul's channel here: / paulvanderklay
Man, if anything in this conversation could give validation to Christianity in metamodernity it was that it produced the spiritual fruit of patience in you.
Postmodernity gave a wonderful gift to traditional Christians by showing them that you don't need to accept the frame offered by modernity.
Yes its much easier to go back to primitive thought forms. More comfortable for the monkey brain. But disastrous to civilization.
Excellent Brendan! I'm an old friend of Paul's and have been following his journey building community around his channel for over 6 years. He's doing something truly unique, and I think it points to an important aspect of addressing the "meaning crisis," it's personal, relational, and open. He has a true pastor's heart. You asked the questions I always ask him when we talk privately, occasionally publicly, only you did it much more expertly. I found your metamodern framing to be a useful way to try to synthesize the old traditions with the increasingly complex world we now face, and you seem to be trying to do that in good faith while not glossing over the awkward incongruencies of many religious teachings. I'm here for it, well done, and I hope you speak with Paul again. There's more there.
💯
This is kind of interesting, but the interviewer conceals a subtle arrogance when speaking on the supernatural/miraculous/paranormal and in a conversation on religion that kind of holds the entire thing back. Anybody who has looked into these things in good faith must take them seriously instead of pretending they are the delusions of primitive minds
Brendan! This is an amazing discussion you've had here with Paul.
As someone myself who loves to operate in the modernist/scientific frame, this convo brought up a lot of great concepts conflicting within me, as I am sure it has you.
One modernist frame you haven't touched on his 'fitness' of an organism. Which religious behaviours can definitely fit within.
But also remember that the scientific null hypothesis is not the antithesis of a hypothesis, but rather that there isn't enough evidence to support the hypothesis, nothing else.
I'd love to see a second round between yourself and Paul as you both grow.
Paul is Amazing ....
The convergence between science, religion, and philosophy seems to be around the mystical aspects of the world traditions.
This was an excellent talk!
1:57:30 my advice on this (feel free to disregard) is to tell a better story. The better story wins the most adherents over the long term. The metamodern story has to get better.
VanderKlay is a smart guy. What he said about language being based on metaphor is accurate to what we know in linguistics, that our concepts are ultimately rooted in our embodiment.
Thought this was brilliant on both Brenden and Paul’s behalf.
Brenden, really appreciate you finally voicing the concerns that most of us who are still “straddling” the meaning crisis are still pointing too.
I think your appraisal is absolutely spot on.
Yes, the old/new re defining and re appraisal of what we mean by things like truth, language, symbols, “religion” and the like is great, I’ve been very sympathetic to the jordan Peterson’s, Jonathan Pageau’s and the rest…… but can it be as simple as just deconstructing the modernist frame?? I don’t think so.
Ah 1:20:00 I’m glad to see someone really pressing Paul on this, in a positive good faith way because there are some questions that come up with how we’re talking about “real”. And I say that as someone who fully believes in Petersonian multiple levels of real. I would only suggest each level of real must also be true or some things break.
Ask PVK "Are Uncle Sam and Jesus "real" in the same way?"
Knowledge is constructed in the mind but feelings and intuitions fill in the space.
In cs Lewis miracles he proposes that it’s faulty to believe that ancient people could believe in miraculous events because they didn’t know how the world worked. Joseph was going to silently divorce Mary when he found out she was pregnant exactly because he knew how it worked. All of the miracles were notable and remembered because they are exceptions to the way that the natural world normally is.
Boom. This. The idea that the ancients saw in wildly non-modernist ways is contrary to the historical evidence.
You realize that this entire reference here is to a story found in an ancient text Gospel of Matthew and it says that "Joseph had a dream" that an angel spoke to him. You can't consider this as evidence???? I love Tom Paine here: "After this we have the childish stories of three or four other dreams: about Joseph going into Egypt; about his coming back again; about this, and about that, and this story of dreams has thrown Europe into a dream for more than a thousand years."
Paine, Thomas. Age of Reason: The Definitive Edition (p. 173). Michigan Legal Publishing Ltd.. Kindle Edition.
@@tgrogan6049 i am not saying anything about him changing his mind.. all i was pointing out was that he originally was going to divorce her, which means he knew how a woman gets pregnant.
46:26 "God is going to heal me on our anniversary",...is this Woo?...If it is, I'm all in : )
Others get more utility out of biblical stories, but wishing them to express that utility in the same ontology (derived from beliefs which are the window to personal utility) as one's own frame, does seem not always possible. People who have different implicit contexts are inevitably harder to talk to, and that is a frustration. Paul speaks to what is metaphor in one frame is reality in another, and vise-versa. Brendan in this convo prioritises modernity over christianity as his frame of clarity. In this convo we broke the tendancy to have the same frames of clarity by asking about Christ's resurrection to a christian in a modernist question. (Although some christians use modernist framings with affirmatives, Paul isn't that type in this context.)
I felt frustrated by Paul's sophistry. I think he was avoiding the core issue, which I would summarize as follows:
Modern historical analysis and comparative religious studies make the falsehood of Jesus' physical resurrection at least plausible, and thus disbelief is a valid position without moral fault. Thus, if Christianity has nothing to offer a permanent disbeliever, it hasn't taken modernity seriously.
Bingo
Further to my previous comment, the lord of spirits episodes that go into this “body”/“spirit” topic are:
God’s Body
Bodies and the Bodiless
Gods of the Nations
What’s a spirit when it’s at home?
Thoughtful,
HOME..... modernist view of human necessities.
When I listen to these conversations, I can’t help shake the feeling thoughtful traditionalists are actually giving a lot more ground to modernist/naturalist modes of thought than the other way around. Granted modern science does offer theological complications to traditional minded believers. However, I’d point out:
1. The stuff in the creed(IE the virgin birth, physical resurrection and age to come) have always been points of contention. When you consider though that Princeton for example didn’t go full modernist until some time in the second half of the twentieth century it’s fair to say that what motivated changes in academic theology was at least as much a rethinking of the role of seminaries and academics generally as any specific discovery.
2. Modernists/naturalists tend to frame the conversation around the idea of conservatives/fundamentalists not getting on board with science. Which maybe fair if you’ve ever read anything by Ken Hamm. However, if as a group post-modern theologians want to have anywhere near the cultural impact they’re seeking to, they need to wrestle a lot harder with how and why religious believers are not in mass buying what they’re selling. The short term impact of theological modernism in the academy has not been an ‘enlightenment’ of the faithful but an exodus from more progressive/moderate traditions to more liturgically modern churches that are often though not exclusively more theologically conservative.
I think it is a substantial misunderstanding to state that this conversation is "rehearse(ing) the basic modern pre-modern debate." Paul is weaving strains of post-modernism, modernism, and pre-modernism together, but it seems to me that this didn't land. It seems like this strain of modernism pulls out meaning as an rational, personal, procedural work that doesn't understand its arbitrary and disconnected telos which you would find if you applied postmodernism. I think Mr. Dempsey feels the same way about the materialistic blindspots of miracles, but modernism has a huge spiritual blindspot. Rationality and spirituality are two completely different modes. Modernism only has one mode. You've got to find a second.
No disrespect intended. Thank you for putting this on!
1:26:12 this is a dull position we people have done the same thing. Through science and non religious texts we as people have done so much damage and pain and horror. When someone claims that God has healed them from their illness or made them better care for others or bright Meaning and purpose into their lives, then it negates the evil god or evil religion question. If we are going to ignore God or religion or spirituality because of evils that have played out, then we must apply the same mode or principle to math, science, art, literature, government, yada yada yada. We must allow people to believe and worship as they will. If those beliefs and rituals harm others then we address those particular instances. Not every particular scales. I hope I was clear.
But no one is claiming that science is a divine being. We've done horrible thing with the help of science but it was US who've done them and we know that. God and evil is a completely different question
54:26 this is the moment where we finally see the glaring blind spot. How can you be this intelligent and not understand how truly wild and weird reality is? Yes, human beings do all sorts of strange things that you might not see in your slice of life
The goal of modernity from 1820’s to 1990’s is to separate historicity from meaning. Scholarship was the handmaiden to this ground motif. In the 90’s this shifted with post modernity which is the triumph of the symbol and myth bolstered by quantum indeterminacy and modern discovery that a priori expectations govern not only perceptions sorting raw inputs, but even molecular folding - expectations govern.
The historical decoupling from meaning is entirely unnecessary now.
But with this shift goes anybody’s expecting that there is any connection between “fact” and “Meaning”
If you love something let it go, and if it comes back to you, then its yours
First of your videos I’ve watched, Brendan. Good work, good questions, and good ‘spirit’ of engagement.
😂
Both of you saying that you enjoyed this conversation is metamoderism, in a nutshell. If you believe dialogue will solve the meaning crisis, then at the very least, you need to be honest with yourself and others.
To use John Vervaeke's terminology to sum up metamoderism in one word, it would be "bullsh*t."
Metamoderism done right is about clearly discriminating between the essential and inessential.
If you invented X-ray goggles that gave you a 100% chance of developing an aggressive form of cancer, it would be wise to not wear those goggles or distribute them. That's the modern project. We don't really need to know what the resurrection physically looked like or who wrote the Bible. That's not what religion is about. If historical/textual criticism comes at the expense of an organizing principal that gives order to the whole, it should be abandoned. You're free to disagree but this is the attitude leaders will take once metamodernism emerges as a political force. Right now we're in the early "republic of letters" stage but some leader will inevitably make use of this discussion.
You seem to be very right & very wrong, in the totality of what you've just said, at the same time 👍❤️
It seems (to me) you're on the right track ❤️
The question is; how to proceed? ❤️
Ok. So then what is the non-BS alternative to metamodernism? Cuz I bet I can find BS aspects to whatever you propose. Unless you’re using BS in the technical sense, which of course is BS in the old-fashioned sense.
@@matthewkilbride1669accepting Christ
Great conversation! Maybe my understanding of meta-modernism is different, but I’m not sure if you’ve fully made it through post-modernity yet. You have to deconstruct all the way down and fully pass through it, then you can put it back together. Even materialism will need to be deconstructed.
I hope that doesn’t come across as rude. Also you got another subscriber
At the bottom all we are left with is the story and personalism
At the bottom all we are left with is the story and personalism
I think this conversation is getting deeper, but is still not deep enough. The true level we need to be working at is metaphysical. Truly, what is the ground of reality itself? Is consciousness fundamental, or a contingent factor made of material phemenona? Is ontology layered, such that processes DO have ontological status (eg. I am an actual thing in the world, and not JUST a collection of atoms-->chemicals--->proteins--->cells---> etc.)? Is the world at bottom material?
In this conversation, there was veiled conflict at the metaphysical level that was not brought to the surface and so both of your wheels were spinning trying to assert beliefs that were the implciations of deeper more fundamental beliefs. Once the conversation gets to the bare bones of things, is when we can truly see where dissagreement is and is not.
1:39 What would PVK say to an old lady who was terrified of going to hell? What comforting things would PVK say to a woman whose son was a drug dealer and died in a shootout with the police? "Don't worry he is in heaven?"
You are being reductive. Paul has spent his life working with the forgotten of Sacramento.
@@FierBarca1899 You mean clear don't you?
I lost nearly all my faith in humans' ability to know Reality, objective truth, which helped me not fuss so much about what is true and not true, and become more pragmatic. There are many ways of knowing, and they all converge on Christianity except some scientific analysis. I don't force myself to believe in the virgin birth, but nor do I care. I'm content to be agnostic as to some details, as I could be wrong. Also, the sum is worth more than it's parts, and the Christian faith is true, whether or not every dogmatic detail is literally true. The tradition, the faith is so rich and robust, I just try to engage as much as I can. My shortcomings are 1,000 times that of the church! Last, yes, the faith has to compromise itself to a more literal/actual interpretation, especially considering its long history, which is very understandable. Most priests/pastors understand there's a more advanced level of understanding, but there's no sense in talking about it. If you know, you know. Many are of this mind, without having to fuss so much over it. It's always been this way, the church can't be everything to everyone.
It seems there is an underlying discomfort with affirming the fundamental mystery at the heart of the religious impulse. Furthermore, this discomfort seems to be a personal and collective trauma response. We shouldn’t be so quick to try and deny the mystery. Maybe the “meta-modern” or integral approach actually involves establishing a valid and worthy place for the mystery to live again.
If you say there’s a mystery at the heart of the religious impulse, does that deny those who say, well, we’re aligning ourselves will the truth of the matter? Is that what you mean, that there’s a mystery at the heart of the impulse, or that the impulse is the answer to a mystery elsewhere?
One of the intersections of the secular and religious is the notion of the person. The spiritual - the human being in touch with a transcendent and that we are social as well as individual (so extending the notion of the person upward and outward).
Bridging from the scholarship to the pew. Much of the scholarship is devoted to the meaning of the text (the importance of context, the choices exercised by the writer/s etc). This can be incorporated into the devotional aspects. People are often used to getting background information about prevailing customs and so forth.
For a lot of people modernism died with the results of the double-split experiment. That simple idea of causation was shown to be false. Once that went then other possibilities open up. The 'laws of nature' became statistical, which for most people mean different things.
What you're after Brendan is a way to give a sense of the difference senses of 'real' when discussing our (inner-outer-shared-individual) reality.
I think the difference in your approaches is about materialism. I think Brendan tends to accept materialism (and there are metaphorical ways of speaking about it), and Paul challenges materialism (people do verifiably fly. This is to tease apart the empiricism and rationalism of the scientific method: the common-sense-materialism can be falsified by one instance of levitation.)
Was great to meet you on ELSNET Eva
“Whoever has ears, let them hear.” Matthew 11:15
Thank you both for the conversation. Very important area of discussion.
42 minute, the conversation is about the real. And what is missing is the fractal, or the repeated pattern. So Graham wants to say that Uncle Sam is a metaphor. But you could also say that your body is made up of cells, the body of the nation is made of people… in other words the connection between Body as a human body and body as a church or nation is the fractal connection the pattern made manifest on different scales of reality.
this is when you sit back and just say: I love the internet ; )
Amen
Crazy convergences for sure
Yep
Lol, ya
Can some”thing” Exist that is not measurable or repeatable? The frame one uses will define how you answer that question.
Like a rainbow, for example.
@@jeremyfirth We can measure rainbows they are not supernatural in any way.
@@tgrogan6049 I didn't mean to suggest they are supernatural. But they are not exactly physical. As you walk towards them, they move. You can measure them from where you are standing, but not from where they are. They are a projection that must be perceived to exist.
I appreciate your Perspective, from my Perspectives.
Something is smelling fishy...... 🐟
This comment is coming a bit late since your conversation was five days ago. Still, I think it important enough to add it. Brenden, you pointed out that at points, Paul was conflating different senses of words such as spirit, but I equally think you often conflated different, religious traditions. For example, saying that all religions have examples of miracles, healings, visions, without really trying to get into the weeds of each religious tradition in trying to understand how they differ, and how perhaps one particular religion might have far more evidence than another. I was also struck when you mentioned that we do not know who wrote the gospels, despite the fact that the earliest copies attribute them as being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Unlike the book of Hebrews that from the beginning exhibited questions of authorship, there was never any question for the early church who wrote the gospels. I would be curious as to who your professors in college were, because it sure seems likely that you harbor deep skepticism about the reliability of the NT. These instances of the hermeneutics of suspicion going back to people like Michael Foucault make us look soooo smart when we distrust any religious claims or attributions we can’t definitively prove.
Thanks. As for the gospels, what earliest copies are you referring to?
So, we have "traditions" of who wrote these ancient texts. So, what! Where do these traditions come from? Are they reliable. We are talking about books filled with miracles. We need a lot of good evidence no?
"despite the fact that the earliest copies attribute them as being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" you are completely wrong on this, there is good academic work disputing this
I feel like you guys were talking past each other. Still a great conversation. I feel Paul didn’t reveal how he squares the circle about the physical claims the Bible makes and how he accepts those miracles over other traditions (other than “I’m a Christian” therefore believing Christian miracles just comes naturally to him). However, Paul accepts that miracles can happen while Brendan disqualifies miracles a priori. The problem with Brendan is that he filters out every”thing” that can’t be contained by the physicalist frame of modernism. So spirits have a mental component, whether intersubjective or transjective because part of the essence of this phenomena is mental it’s considered less real or not real at all, an illusion by Brendan’s presuppositions. Paul tried to explain that these sorts of phenomena have a reality of their own and actually can govern our actions and have impact in the world but he failed to give a good enough example.
The scientific physicalist frame can’t contain values, virtue or higher order structures like say nations, justice and the good. The physical reductionist frame says these things are arbitrary fictions, ephemeral products of an unverifiable mind. Yet by these “things” we order our lives and the world. There lies the true value of religion and why I think it’s a category error to ascertain it’s relevance based solely on correspondence to physicality. I always like to ask the question, “who attacked Pearl Harbor?”. To say it was merely the airplane fighters then we have approached it at the wrong level of analysis that doesn’t fully capture the full chain of causality and agency. The common sense answer would be Japan but what is Japan? If it’s merely a fiction or an illusion then how can such a thing be responsible? How can it act upon the world with consequence?
I think when Brendan critiques religion on of having an immoral history, he smuggles in Christian morals in doing so. He’s using the Christian yard stick to pronounce judgement on what is good or evil. It’s not Roman paganism, Aztec values or Mongolian horde morals and ethics he’s using. Even Islam believes in the right of conquest of the Kafir/unbeliever. So even if Christendom fails by it’s own metric it is the metric by which Brendan measures. The sanctity of the weak and the victim is a Christian innovation which is exemplified by the Jesus on the cross.
Thanks. I reply to your question here: ua-cam.com/video/Tu1vPrEjHFk/v-deo.html
So, could you please outline for me the absolute morals of Christianity? What are they precisely?
Hmm. Vanderklay at times here presents with a kind of arrogance that I find very unappealing and reminds of many Protestants that I know. “Because I’m a Christian”. Really?
1:28:04 the thing about these endless points of critique is that they apply to science too, you want proof for science? there aint any, there's no final answer that can finally prove any position for sure. you could throw all of those same things to any old scientist. what are you really grasping for?
Science works. Mystagogical navel gazing is a dead end.
Brendan Grahan Dempsey: let's think about embodiment and its importance for the interpretation of texts.
PVK: no, no, let's play around with concepts in our heads and pretend that this is vitally important for understanding the Gospel.
Wow, BGD absolutely destroyed PVK's position between 1:27:00 through 1:30:00 and PVK doubled down on absolute nonsense.
PVK's problem is that he thinks the fundamental challenge religion poses to modernity is the reality of the miraculous: miracles a real but modern science as taught us to disbelieve them. This is wrong. The fundamental challenge that religion poses to modernity is to "lift" the human body out of the natural world is identify with as morally and spiritually significant in a way that other beings and things are not. Each and every person already "knows" the human body is morally and spiritually significant in a way the rest of the natural world is not. Their body is uniquely theirs. But modern science presumes that bodies belong to an external, objective, material world which can only be understood in contingent, mechanical terms. Modern science, in other words, reads the moral and spiritual significance of the human body out of the natural world.
So long as PVK is interested in resurrecting miracles and not resurrecting bodies, he will fundamentally misunderstand the challenge religious traditions pose to modern science.
PVK's poo-poohing of history is disingenuous. He loves a specific historical narrative about the place of religious belief in the development of West, one which he takes over from Tom Holland and others like him. What he is not willing to do is interrogate the limitations of that narrative, so he retreats to a How am I supposed to know what history actually says? position.
@@rgrydns1 There is no enduring self it is an illusion. The Buddha
@@rgrydns1 Typical apologist. He is also misrepresenting Tammy Petersons cancer. See my post above. I do not cut apologists/preachers any slack. They represent themselves as the ministers of the almighty and those who know the truth.
all this talk than at the end the object cause of desire comes out for both parties and there projects and some common ground was come upon. a lot like pray and meditation, interesting
Thank you for this discussion
MY TAKE: Dempsey was addressing the metamodern largely within the logic of modernism (esp. structuralism) and Vanderklay was doing so with deconstructionst play; hence, Vanderklay having fun and Dempsey being frustrated. Vanderklay drew on his life experiences and intellectual background to instantiate a temporary langugage game; Dempsey emphasized his rational need for facts and a clean broad understanding of science and language. Neither man could really "hear" or understand the other. Plus their thinking-speaking styles are not compatible. Is this uneasy relationship between the modern and the postmodern spiritualities what an early stage metamodernism for religion/spirituality will be before figuring itself out? Let me add that a sincere and serious modernism probably must remain subservient to an ironic and playful postmodernism for any success at a final set of terms and uses for a future metamodernism (and metamodern spirituality) that is not merely a rephrasing of 20th-century post-postmodern critiques of all things postmodern and post-structuralist or a bad faith attempt to rehash premodern ideas in idealized stereotypes.
Your closing question is a good one. I am also interested in hearing that I presented as frustrated. I definitely felt the conversation reached a certain limit, but I'd also posit that some of what reads as frustration may be my limit to hold an increasing number of sensitivities simultaneously--ultimately to the breaking.
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey I enjoyed watching the exchange and it's past midnight here, so no complaints. I just added a final comment: a sincere and serious modernism probably must remain subservient to an ironic and playful postmodernism for any success at a final set of terms and uses for a future metamodernism (and metamodern spirituality) that is not merely a rephrasing of 20th-century post-postmodern critiques of all things postmodern and post-structuralist or a bad faith attempt to rehash premodern ideas in idealized stereotypes. I enjoy your channel!
Paul obviously understands where Brendan is coming from. He was subjected to the same type of Modernist education at Calvin and we've all been swimming in these waters for over a century. More importantly, he's a pastor and surely has lots of experience speaking with fundamentalists of all stripes, including Modernist ones.
@@rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr1True, VanderKlay is old enough and schooled enough to speak from a modernist scienctific realism, but he seems to have become increasingly entranced with Peterson's Jungianisms and the cognitive science stance coming out of John Vervaeke. Since I've watched VanderKlay over the past few years, he shifted into a personalized mode of deconstructive querying...not sure how conscious he is of this. Did you see his video today critiquing Peterson grilling Destiny? Another example of an older man and a younger man speaking past each other and missing an opportunity to form an easy bond. Frankly, however, it's the shifts and misses in these conversations that reveal more at times than does the feigned camaraderie in Peterson's world and VanderKlay's little corner. Would be interesting to know what Pageau would make of these two discussions.
I see PVK as a bullshitter and a dissimulator sorry!
a thought on your thesis @1:35:00 or thereabout - flipping it to 'what do we lose' with modern 'understanding', thats the meaning crisis right? our understanding still has a ways to go and will change. I mean every week it seems the JWST challenges our understanding of the cosmos. what will future humans say about what we 'believed'. history, or 'modernity'/progress, is always going through a battle of integrating the past with the present right? i've watched PVK for a bit and you asked him many of the qs I've wanted to ask him. I understand where you are coming from Brendan, I feel all the same ways about ‘this little corner’. appreciate your contributions with this channel (and PVK too).
@2:08:00 relate so hard 👏👏👏
I'm struggling to articulate my frustration here... While listening to the two of you, i tried to create a graph in my head placing the two perspectives from a position of values. I so desperately wanted to see where you both would overlap on substantial matters (like in a venn diagram), but i couldn't. I heard acknowledgements of the existence of Modernity and Pre-Modernity, and maybe a little bit on how they play in each other's lives. But was there ever a point when you were on the same page (without it being re-interpreted as something else, pulling it out from under you)?
Brendan, my bias is that I admire what you tried to do. And my confession is that i would have left that exchange early on, feeling like communication was not a mutual goal. I admit, i fault Paul for this. And i can't see how Metamodernity will develop into a cohesive concept when tactics are used like the ones Paul used. I'm not being charitable by saying this, but it seemed to me that Paul enjoys the diminishing of the significance Modernity's methods has offered to avoid self-delusion.
I feel the same. I get flashbacks of my worst days as a Christian. It's pre-modern not metamodern.
Many times people need to get to know each other before they can have a constructive conversation. Give it time, theyll do better next time
Why is JVV such an authority on everything? Is he that highly esteemed in scholarship.
Seems to me that Islam takes bits of the old testament and adds various aspects and interpretations of it own. Bearing in mind the book of Exodus and its accounts of Abraham was written over a thousand years before Islam.
There is a growing trend in scholarship that the Hebrew Bible dates from after 300 BCE.
Please talk to Jonathan Pageau next. Many of the topics you brought up are extremely relevant to his whole way of thinking. Jonathan actually embodies this pre-modern thinking in a way that is incredibly rare.
I'd love to.
They'd both need a spa day after. 😂
The reality vs history portion of this already excellent dialogue makes it a canonical conversation.
For sure. So many lightsabers
Interesting. I thought it was not a top tier convo...
Maybe my bias for pvk , but I thought Dempsey was too rigid in his approach and sticking points
@@matthewparlato5626 interesting, I thought he was holding PVK’s feet to the fire so to speak as he tried to TLC his way out of scientific questions (We can’t ignore science) and I thought PVK held his feet to the fire as he tried to metamodern his way out of invoking spiritual language.
@teestrypzSOG interesting... I'd agree to an extent, PVK does appreciate science just properly nested and understands what it fails to do. And Dempsey shying away from how mysterious yet revealing the fundamental metaphorical/symbolic nature of our cognition is, imo was a poor presenting of Metamodernism. Metamodernism should understand where and why Sciencers are dying deaths of despair and PVK need not to emphasize his respect for Science, he's Reform pastor ! Lol just my 2 cents
Honestly you're perfect for this because, a little JVs Extended(Transcendent)Naturalism would've gone a long way in this convo imo
@@matthewparlato5626 are you on discord? I really want to talk to you about this
2:04:02 “meta-modernity looks like Job”, modernity looks like most of what you’re talking about in your video. With due respect, because you have excellent grasp at modern knowledge. But meta-religion looks like Catholics and Baptists calling each other brother, without feeling either needs to change church to remain Christian.
Thanks. I reply to your question here: ua-cam.com/video/Tu1vPrEjHFk/v-deo.html
Good interview, good questions, but modernity also proved its own limits, Cantor (actual infinites) and Gödel (what can be true but not provable).
Something I've been thinking about four states of things.
1) rational and real (concrete and measurable)
2) rational and unreal (Logic, abstract things, unembodied potential/ imagination, school spirit)
3) irrational and real (transcendence, pure actuality, Actual infinites, Pi, cannot be measured)
4) irrational and unreal ( negation, zero pure potentiality)
NT authors claim more than miracles they claim Christ is necessary for reality to exist. Hebrews 2:10 "For whom and by whom all things exist". This is an exclusive claim and needs to be though about on an ontological basis. Forget the distractions and look at the foundation of all things.
Confused words suggested confused ideas at best, dissimulation at worst.
Your question I think Johnathan Pageau has the best answer to. Specifically his answer to the resurrection. Have you read language of creation btw? Have you checked out the channel a kernal from the catacombs? It's about Matthieu Pageaus book language of creation, it will help quite alot.
Why is Jonathan Pageau an expert on anything besides creating iconography?
@@tgrogan6049 find out :)
PVK seems more interested in deconstructing the difference between the reality of actual bodies (one's that live and die) and metaphorical bodies than he is in thinking through the difference between actual bodies and metaphorical bodies. He should be doing the latter. He is not.
Why should he be doing the latter? Well, PVK doesn't cease to be PVK whether he is thinking about himself or another person (both of whom have actual bodies) or he is thinking about the "body" of a community. If an embodied PVK thinks about embodied persons, he has an immediate intuitive grasp of what is being talked about: he is embodied. But if an embodied PVK thinks about school spirit or family (to borrow the examples that he uses), he ought to pay attention to the difference between the thinker (an embodied being) and what is being thought about (something which is being described as a body metaphorically.)
PVK ignores this plainly obvious difference. Why? Well, he is typically modernist in the sense that he explores language and ignores his own embodiment.
One has to wonder whether he actually believes in the resurrection of the body--specifically Jesus body--because his whole decadent modernist mode of analysis effectively denies its resurrection.
I think exploring the different aspects of language might be intentional to open up the conversation to find common ground. Perhaps you find error because of the frame from which you are viewing this conversation.
@@jasonrodneypnw Maybe, but I am not talking about incommensurable frames. I am talking about conceptual issue that PVK doesn't address in his frame--namely, the fact he has a body, that his thinking about himself and other people and his thinking about communities and institutional forms both presuppose the same thing: that he is the same embodied being.
To treat this merely as a issue of which frame you are occupying makes this merely an abstract conceptual issue and cheapens embodiment to the point of ignoring it.
For example, PVK wants to create a hard and fast distinction between things and spirits. But he is unable to interrogate how they interrelate/interact.
Does "school spirit happen" is a good question? is a good question--a dumb question, but a good question, because it gets at something important. Yes, it happens. It happens because it expresses itself through material thing--human bodies--in the world. School spirit "feels" airy fairy because we think about it as expressing itself subjectively to the exclusion the objective world. But that's not the case. School spirit has no existence apart from human bodies. Take human bodies away: School spirit vanishes. Full stop. PVK's playful provocations are based on a vital intuition, but are expressed in a nonsense form.
I agree I don't know what PVK believes. I think we will have to wait till his retirement to find out. He has to keep that CRC job!
“What do you mean by” So many lightsabers
Thought of you there.
Lightsaber sounds 🎶
@@phlebas9204I thought he was gracious in that he came with I similar spirit. Sometimes this is appropriate. I felt he avoided a pollyannish mode. I felt it was honest.
Ugh. You're a patient man, Paul.
I know now how that missionary felt when all the tribesmen were pointing across the river at their god. I didn't know that anyone still held this uncritically and naively to the faith claims of Modernity and the Historical Critical Method.
@@swerremdjee2769 He's not either of those (judging by one 2-hour conversation). But his apparent understanding of Metamodernism is baffling. He insists that Tradition must swallow Modernism whole but his own Modernism appears wholly untouched by Postmodernism. I didn't hear anything in this conversation that I would actually call Metamodern (except from Paul). Brendan's thought was barely distinguishable from an old school Enlightenment Modern. Really weird project here.
@@rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr1 you’ve spent too much time in PVK Land if you didn’t know that Modernity dying no dead. How fast it’s dying might be up for debate and I believe it’s dying slower than most TLC folks believe but ‘Objectively’ Modernity is ‘Literally’ not dead…yet.
@@teestrypzSOG I only hear this Fundie-level iteration of strong belief in Modernist religious assumptions (as opposed to the political non-religion that was differentiated at the beginning of the convo) from some very old religion profs, New Atheist dead enders, and the hick lib-equivalent of raised-as-Christians who are trying to make their way in the managerial class. It was quite surprising to hear it from someone in the Vervaeke/etc constellation.
@@rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr1 but his own Modernism appears wholly untouched by Postmodernism, yes
42:45 why is it important?
If you can't say the creed, you ain't in the club.
the spirits within a person determines what is and is not important
1:51:48 so yeah the naturalist view...he espouses uses the fairly new term supernatural as if that which generates the universe such as what various quantum theories suggest that space-time is emergent would imply that "naturalism" is discarding an aspect what is natural (within the assumption of the complete system.)
1:59:31 this convo wasn't top-tier pvk but man is he not the best pastor in the world 🙌
Metamodernism sounds like its still being taken hostage by Scientism.
BTW I find it very hard to believe that people who were informed atheists are kissing boxes of relics. Smells like a preacher's story.
If you are going to live a genuine Christian life, you be believe Jesus is God. If Jesus is God he’s not subject to the laws of the universe… so there would be nothing stopping him ascending into heaven if that were the case even with our modern understanding of physical laws. He’s not the governor of the laws if he can’t transcend them. Metamodern christianity would cease to be Christianity if it could just reimagine core dogmas like this
Also you should talk to Father Stephen DeYoung or listen to the lord of spirits podcast / the whole counsel of God podcast if you want someone to tackle textual criticism from a fairly meta modern perspective. He’s got a phD in biblical studies and I feel like it’s the voice you want to hear in this space based on this and your last video.
Chat GPT and Google Gemini will be your next Pope. Humanity is fallen and can't get up, by its own means.
Thanks. I reply to your question here: ua-cam.com/video/Tu1vPrEjHFk/v-deo.html
Of course the only person who mentions this most spectacular of all miracles is "Luke" who was not even there. Don't you think that is a problem???? "John" was allegedly there but must have forgotten about it? Matthew was there and just neglected to mention it? How is this plausible?
The greatest trick the Devil ever played was convincing Metamodernists he didn’t exist.
Underrated comment
The greatest trick the Devil ever played was being invented through a historical process that could be clearly documented, giving people the rational basis for rejecting the idea as a theological production, and one that's long since lost its utility. ;)
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey I’m thinking you could swap the word devil for equation’s and it would mean something similar. Meaning numbers are symbols that help people discover how some things work or help people do many different things. Was math discovered or invented? Was the devil discovered or invented?
It was also smart of god to get you to believe the infinite creator can be contained within a pronoun referring to a mammalian male.
@@ChadTheAlcoholic... you are a theological Bar brawler. ( that should not be trifled with)
I really like the insight.
1:17:46 scientism.... Meta modern....but he says we must see things through modern lenses
Premodern people didn't appreciate the gravity of the situation. :)
The European world exploded 500 years ago. The consequences are still falling to Earth.
Woot it happened ❤
1:4249 you say that you're not convinced by modernity and all that, but really you've both feet on the materialistic paradigm, this whole frame here is pure materialism. think about gravity, how does gravity take action? where is gravity? does gravity spend energy? and more importantly, where does gravity gets its power?
but you know very well that gravity is not a real thing but a theory, and yet apples keeps falling to the ground, and so you end up in this position where you know there's something out there, but it escapes all of your categories, here your frame is useless, you keep grabbing onto it but it turns out it's but a plank of wood in the ocean, you need something better, and it's nothing that you'll find by thinking real hard, the real trial is one of will, not of logic.
1:32:20 atheism and myths is a book that goes into the inquisition and the like.
With religious wars being far the minority of wars globally
WHAT DO YOU MEAN GRANDMA......
@1:26:44 rephrase of objection - this isn’t working like I think it should
Paul is being pre-modern. He's recommending old-fashioned cognitive dissonance. I can't live like that again.
1:51:16 you know in movies when people go kiss the ring on the hand of the king, why would people do that? do they think that gives them some quality of grace? is that supernatural thinking?
your frame is very faulty.
Thanks. I reply to your question here: ua-cam.com/video/Tu1vPrEjHFk/v-deo.html
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey thanks for taking the time to reply in a long video
Brendan you might be smuggling oughts into your “is”.
Only partly kidding 😉
Good video.
Interesting. I actually reject the 'naturalistic fallacy' and think all is's contain oughts, and say so explicitly in my work elsewhere, so no smuggling per se, but that's an interesting observation. :)
are metaphors real?
No, but Bigfoot is... 🙃
try the switch from binary to spectrum with a "ness" like realness
@1:21:30 'optimistic' darwinism
Insert "It's happening!" gif
Sure Vanderklay, we all read Platos's Cave, and we know "real" has different senses. You are so silly. We can also ask Jacques Lacan about his view!
Asking Lacan his views would be getting to the "Real".
Thanks for the conversation. I like Paul, but his metaphysics is shallow and predictable. Blinded by a certain narrative tradition/institutional structure.
He's trying to convince us through sophistry.
Actually, this first response was a poor choice of words, rather mean spirited. I think that Paul chooses to be a fundamentalist/literalist in biblical matters. He obviously learned the historical/critical methods in Seminary, but chooses to deny their validity and usefulness. That is his choice. Saying that they only give a pastor “therapy “ or “political “ tools which are “secular “ modes really does not reflect Jesus teachings and healing in his Galilean context. I learned all this through historical/critical biblical studies, and my faith is increased by this knowledge.
This misuse of the term "deconstruction," so flippantly thrown around as if it signifies something interesting or meaningful, makes me cringe (sorry, another horrible term). Derrida, who coined the term, used it in a very specific, and technical manner (i.e. a "method" of reading texts, literature and philosophy).
He did not mean the ordinary "questioning one's faith." There is no need for a new word when talking about a "crisis in faith." It doesn't make you seem smarter by saying it is a "deconstruction."
This is the problem. Jordan Peterson and his followers have been rehashing debates of the 1990's, and they think they are cutting edge and original and they are not. It is a simulacra of the 90's, whether you are talking about the Sokal (Boghossian-Lindsay repetition) affair or the sad Peterson conservative William Buckley shtick or the postmodern critical perspective, including Foucault (Vereveake rips off from).
There is nothing new here, and Vanderklay is a symptom of the corruption and degradation of intellectual honesty.
He's a coddled Pastor, and he does not have a solid philosophical foundation, and is so confused in his discussion of philophical concepts.
He is an evangelizing preacher, and he wants status, and he is basically incoherent in his analyses. He can't engage in any philosophical argument, but can only align himself with people he thinks are popular
Everything comes out of his mouth is gibberish..
*yawn*
The misue of this term bugged me a lot in the 80s and 90s, but I gave up the struggle. To most now it means something like "unpacking" or "taking apart" or "tearing down."
@@rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr1 Ok Cain, cry.
@@zzzaaayyynnn It is overused, and misused. It does NOT mean "a crisis in faith." I think the Vanderklay-types use it in order to appear intelligent and relevant. Vervaeke does the same sh*t. It is not helpful, and about 30-40 years too late. Vanderklay is a relic, and doesn't read philosophy, and he thinks the internet is life.
you are smart and very insightful, but i feel it would be wise to see Paul not as a postmodern hangover. he and the his little coner are growing and it speaks to a group of seekers making a home for a growing group building past what has blocked doctrinal walls.
I believe it speaks to a ton of groups that are in a post phase of whatever that looks like. Maybe not metamodern but there is a there there.
BTW "supernatural" is not a modern concept. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural
The oppressed cry for Relief 18:32 "gimme some resources to improve my lot" reflects more pleasantly than Paul's "they want capitalism!" mis¿take; tho My lot less significant than Our lot.
20:37 if we think about this "State‴ is a better frame than country. Thinking insularly how to ensure a single entity within the over all State achieve andor maintain primacy necessarily requires the fulfilment functionary of rivalrous dynamics, resulting ultimately always in subState selfs-terminations.