I enjoyed the conversations immensely and am not exclusively a techno-optimist. I would be remiss though to point out that in 1990, I would have had to have either traveled to a university/school to hear a discussion like this or get a physically cumbersome device like a tape or vhs which would have taken longer, cost more money and had poorer quality.
@@21stcentury.renaissance CW seems to want me to invite you on my channel. My streams are open to anyone and I would be very happy to schedule one for you, if you would like.
“All possible knowledge… depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like "must be" and "therefore" and since is a real perception of how things outside our own minds really “must” be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them - if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work - then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.” [C S Lewis]
This was a very intriguing conversation. Thanks to you both (and CW). I especially want to chew more on these problems around literature and poetry and embodiment. I've always felt the importance of that, even as a child. The tendency of the people of the information age to presume that knowing about is as good as knowing is so deleterious to personal growth, it's very troubling. My experience tells me that a lot of people seem to come out of their education with their guard up against ideas that aren't immediately intelligible. As a side note, I think that a lot of the good stuff I've learned from people like Peterson, Vervaeke, PVK sat in my mind doing very little for years until I made the decision to act on it, to embody it. Best wishes, can't wait to hear another one between you two!
Present. At 46:00 or so Dr. Piano says that we integrate archetypes and present a unified person to the world. But the world never sees us this way. Isn't that meaning we are deceived at a deep level? We need to be very wary of this "integration" move? The identity problem... Why are we taught that we can be such unified identities? "The poem (of us) is not on the page (of our presented identity) perhaps.".
Stephen, thank you for your comment. These are good questions - before I would respond, I might ask follow-up question: why do you say that the world never sees us as an integrated, unified person? I am inclined to think this is the most common way for the outside world to perceive of us, given the tendency in dialogue, speech, and most forms of verbal and imagistic representation to depict Man as a unitary individual in concert with his body as a unified whole. Thank you again!
@@21stcentury.renaissanceyes but the observers of you don’t have anything like a unified view of who you are. And if the observers know you by a poem you read, which is the real depth(?) then it’s an even worse correlation between observers. It almost seems that the more observers disagree about who you are the more accurately (poetically) you’ve revealed yourself to the world.
@@Stephen.D20 Okay I think I see where our understandings of that term differ. It seems to me that observers do not all have the exact same *model* of who you are (let's call it your personality). That model is always going to have some element of it that is unique to the individual that observes you, since it is conditioned by relational actions and value judgements. Now, despite the fact that these models will differ, they will participate in a common notion of you as the sum of your actions, subpersonalities, characteristics, and appearances. The sum of these is a unified whole and others even as the observe and build personalized characterizations of you do not build separate categories of 'person' for you. They may notice modal and value-based variations in your personality, but when you become depressed, say, they do not suddenly fail to recognize you or call you by your name amid that temporary personality shift. This how I intend the notion of an integrated personality. There is, of course, also a part of this which is manifest over time. My understanding of much of Peterson's approach to psychotherapy is in part getting the personality to be properly integrated over time, since this is an issue that many of us face as we transition between stages of life. Does that make sense?
@@21stcentury.renaissanceyes I understand your viewpoint but I don’t see how it squares with your emphasis on poetry as somehow an invaluable higher truth. And you seem to give observers clarity beyond what is possible in this common notion idea. I see an inherent fallacy in personal identity as defined in the “summed over many instances” language based models of these observers. Surely poetry advises that language is malleable in ways that are impossible to pin down to anything like certainty? I think different observers do categorize differently. I would be suspicious of such knowability of persons as a deceptive Thomism, bow to Aristotle, nod to Bonaventure and the Victorines and head straight to Palamas. There is way too much to say. Perhaps a conversation.
I’ve really appreciated Kale’s thought recently. I would pay money I don’t have for an online confessions course.
I also am convinced that the best current education has to offer is only recoverable by recorded long form conversations like this.
I enjoyed the conversations immensely and am not exclusively a techno-optimist. I would be remiss though to point out that in 1990, I would have had to have either traveled to a university/school to hear a discussion like this or get a physically cumbersome device like a tape or vhs which would have taken longer, cost more money and had poorer quality.
CW weeks got me here
A good man! What did you think of the conversation?
@@21stcentury.renaissance I thoroughly enjoyed it and hope you two have more conversations, I feel there's loads of meat left on the bone.
Duly noted! Thanks for contributing!
@@21stcentury.renaissance CW seems to want me to invite you on my channel. My streams are open to anyone and I would be very happy to schedule one for you, if you would like.
Same...subd
“All possible knowledge… depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like "must be" and "therefore" and since is a real perception of how things outside our own minds really “must” be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them - if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work - then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.” [C S Lewis]
This was a very intriguing conversation. Thanks to you both (and CW). I especially want to chew more on these problems around literature and poetry and embodiment. I've always felt the importance of that, even as a child.
The tendency of the people of the information age to presume that knowing about is as good as knowing is so deleterious to personal growth, it's very troubling. My experience tells me that a lot of people seem to come out of their education with their guard up against ideas that aren't immediately intelligible.
As a side note, I think that a lot of the good stuff I've learned from people like Peterson, Vervaeke, PVK sat in my mind doing very little for years until I made the decision to act on it, to embody it. Best wishes, can't wait to hear another one between you two!
You’re making me want to pick up Confessions again
7:00 this reminds me of yet another superhero movie
: )
Present. At 46:00 or so Dr. Piano says that we integrate archetypes and present a unified person to the world. But the world never sees us this way. Isn't that meaning we are deceived at a deep level? We need to be very wary of this "integration" move? The identity problem... Why are we taught that we can be such unified identities? "The poem (of us) is not on the page (of our presented identity) perhaps.".
Stephen, thank you for your comment. These are good questions - before I would respond, I might ask follow-up question: why do you say that the world never sees us as an integrated, unified person? I am inclined to think this is the most common way for the outside world to perceive of us, given the tendency in dialogue, speech, and most forms of verbal and imagistic representation to depict Man as a unitary individual in concert with his body as a unified whole. Thank you again!
@@21stcentury.renaissanceyes but the observers of you don’t have anything like a unified view of who you are. And if the observers know you by a poem you read, which is the real depth(?) then it’s an even worse correlation between observers. It almost seems that the more observers disagree about who you are the more accurately (poetically) you’ve revealed yourself to the world.
@@Stephen.D20 Okay I think I see where our understandings of that term differ.
It seems to me that observers do not all have the exact same *model* of who you are (let's call it your personality). That model is always going to have some element of it that is unique to the individual that observes you, since it is conditioned by relational actions and value judgements.
Now, despite the fact that these models will differ, they will participate in a common notion of you as the sum of your actions, subpersonalities, characteristics, and appearances. The sum of these is a unified whole and others even as the observe and build personalized characterizations of you do not build separate categories of 'person' for you. They may notice modal and value-based variations in your personality, but when you become depressed, say, they do not suddenly fail to recognize you or call you by your name amid that temporary personality shift.
This how I intend the notion of an integrated personality. There is, of course, also a part of this which is manifest over time. My understanding of much of Peterson's approach to psychotherapy is in part getting the personality to be properly integrated over time, since this is an issue that many of us face as we transition between stages of life.
Does that make sense?
@@21stcentury.renaissanceyes I understand your viewpoint but I don’t see how it squares with your emphasis on poetry as somehow an invaluable higher truth. And you seem to give observers clarity beyond what is possible in this common notion idea. I see an inherent fallacy in personal identity as defined in the “summed over many instances” language based models of these observers. Surely poetry advises that language is malleable in ways that are impossible to pin down to anything like certainty? I think different observers do categorize differently. I would be suspicious of such knowability of persons as a deceptive Thomism, bow to Aristotle, nod to Bonaventure and the Victorines and head straight to Palamas. There is way too much to say. Perhaps a conversation.