Authority & Authoritarianism, part 2 | with Jonathan Pageau
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- Part 1: ua-cam.com/users/li...
@JonathanPageau is an author, icon carver, and host of The Symbolic World. In this calmvo we discuss the fissures and fractures in the liberal world view, and how religion (whatever that means) is inevitable.
Follow! / @jonathanpageau
/ pageaujonathan
thesymbolicwor...
Support this channel:
www.paypal.me/...
cash.app/$benj...
www.buymeacoff...
Find all interviews on spotify: spoti.fi/3px5WnK
/ benjaminboyce
Join me on alternative video sites:
odysee.com/@Be...
www.bitchute.c...
rumble.com/use...
And on Twitter @BenjaminABoyce
The further I've delved into Orthodoxy, the more Jonathan makes sense to me; and the more I can predict his points, especially when he's in conversation with materialists. I don't think I've grown smarter, or that M. Pageau has grown more prosaic; but rather that I've gained a better grasp of the Orthodox mindset, and that M. Pageau has been expressing it all this time. I recognize his references in early church fathers and scripture now, and now I see that's what he has been doing all this time. Thanks Ben, good talk.
😒 I wish I could say the same. What he's saying sounds like a bunch of blah blah blah to me.
@@anomietoponymie2140are you orthodox?
The beauty of orthodoxy is it is for everyone. From the lowest to the highest. If u cant grasp the higher thoughts its ok. What u hear at church perfect. Only difference is language and jonathan uses complex language
Phronema.
The Greeks have a word for it.
@@anomietoponymie2140I can completely see how he could sound that way to someone. For me, he makes perfect sense but I think it's because I share a lot of similar experiences with him. And I'm also a Christian and an artist. But even as I'm tracking what he's saying and connecting it to ideas I've had, I'm aware of how arbitrary or abstract it could sound to someone else.
When Jonathan speaks he is not speaking from material perspective. Ancient people view reality and world different than what see today. We see from rational material perspective. For more info try Jonathan and his brother Matthieu conversation@@anomietoponymie2140
Jordan Peterson : clean your room
Jonathan pageau: clean your soul
I'd rather say:
Jordan: Clean your room
Jonathan: Put a cross in your room
James Lindsay: cleanse the academy of marxism, gnosticism, collectivism, Hegelianism, Platonism, religion, etc, etc, etc
The 2+2=4 is a brilliant illustration for the difference between a rule and truth. The same way with Christian dogmas - if you do not see that they are expressing universal truth, you will treat them as mere rules people invented to oppress you. We have to realise that everything has consequences which often do not align with our fantasies and short-term wishful thinking.
Well said
what I like the most about Jonathan's thinking is how it goes from the lowest level of reality to the highest. its fractal and rings true from personal experience.
All new age gurus do this to be honest. And we're supposed to stand still and listen in awe at such profound wisdom.
Jonathan isn't a guru. Nothing he says is outside the mind of the Orthodox Church, many things he says are paraphrasing Church fathers from the 4th or 5th century. There's a lot he adds based on our modern context, sure; but if you read enough to know where he's coming from, it's nothing crazy.
@@gulanhem9495 Did you just mean to imply that Pageau is "new age guru"? 😆
I can never get enough of Jonathan
Becoming Orthodox has completely transformed every aspect of my life in ways so profound and beautiful as I could never have imagined. And I thank Jonathan (my brother-in-Christ Maximos) and regard him as the primary benefecator, barring Christ Himself, in my conversion. I took Saint John Damascene, called the Defender of Icons, as my patron saint because of my love for iconography which was my bridge to the Orthodox Church, and I would not have this great deposit had Jonathan not shined a light on it. Glory to God who is great in His servants!
1:06:55 - indeed forgiveness is not only not possible it is mocked. I forgave my husband for hurting me and some ppl consider it a weakness. They think that I forgave him because I didn’t want to be alone. I forgave him because I love my children and because Jesus said to forgive. I had no idea how hard that was until I went through it. It was worth it though because we love each other more than we ever have. Forgiveness in today’s society is considered weakness because so many narcs abuse ppl who don’t set boundaries.
1:12:07 - I sacrificed my ego and pride and concerns of what others thought of me for my children and my marriage. By letting go of the old me and embracing the new me that was hurt but grew from it, I am a much more understanding and happier person. Letting go of you and embracing the new possibility ahead of you is quite freeing. Through my duty to my kids and my marriage, I became more free. I became free from my old self and that was a good thing.
I think ppl are afraid of sacrifice because they fear pain, hard work, undesirable outcomes, and being reborn into the new integrated self.
Letting go of all of that and accepting the journey is freeing. By conquering my fears and anxieties, I am a lot more confident in myself and in my love for my family.
That’s what sacrifice means to me.
Forgiveness allows for resurrection
@@umiluvyour husband is a very lucky man. Thank you for sharing that story, I am going through something very similar.
@@umiluv This is amazing. Thank you so much for sharing this. God bless you.
I am not a religious believer but subscribe to many of the best Christian tenants. Sometimes strength is mistaken as weakness. So happy that you did not let pride overcome your duty to your family. Way to go girl!
This was an awesome conversation! Thanks Benjamin for keep asking for clarification, Jonathan is so smart and has so much depth, I found you were asking the questions I’ve always wanted to ask him. Listening with my less than religious husband was truly a blessing this Sunday.
But as usual Jonathan didn't answer. His symbolism, value hierarchies and pattern searching are not based on any objective criteria.
He did answer: a value hierarchy is not something you can fully analyze and proove formally with objective automatable criteria.
You can have some trivial criteria (heaven is better than hell etc.), but even that requires overcoming the fact-value distinction.
@@otto5118can you explain. I don’t get it
@jacob6088 When Jonathan speaks he is not speaking from material perspective. Ancient people view reality and world different than what see today. We see from rational material perspective. For more info try Jonathan and his brother Matthieu conversation
Gents, thanks for this. Benjamin keep asking for clarification of "the bleedin obvious" it is rarely as obvious as everyone assumes.
Jonathan, conversations with Benjamin give me much better access into your world.
I just went to X to read a few posts, after listening to Jonathan. It's plainly ludicrous that all those people think correcting each other all day is actually going to improve the situation!
X (twitter) is so unhealthy for mental wellbeing… much better to just stay away from it entirely
You're such an excellent interviewer Benjamin. This is the first time I've seen Jonathan seeming, at one or two brief moments, to struggle to give what I perceive as insufficiently strong and precise answers. I absolutely love Jonathan's work, I admire him very much, and I think it's really good that he can have the opportunity to be challenged like this, as it will help him further refine his thinking and his expression of it.
Maps of Meaning was helpful with this subject.
“The world can be validly construed as forum for action, or as place of things.”
And
“The value structures you inhabit determine what you perceive… it doesn’t determine what you expect or what you want, it determines what you see.”
-JBP
Ties in nicely with Dr McGilchrist’s work
@@thesecondlawandthetowerhou6026
100%
Nah just be Catholic
Never listened to a long form with Jonathan, so this will be a treat. Thank you Jonathan and Mr. BeardTube for hosting🐈
Go check his conversations with Jordan Peterson, they're wonderful
You haven't watched the historic JBP-Pageau talk 1-2 years ago??? Have you been living in a cave? 🤣
@@carlotapuig .. I spoke too soon, as I have indeed seen a fair bit of content form Jonathan. Not sure I have seen the one with JBP you mention, but it is maybe. I will do a bit more to seek him out*
*as a matter of fact, I _do_ live in a cave.... it is called Benjamin's basement. I have been locked down here for close to a year now and lucky to get a few table scraps tossed from under the kitchen door every few days. We kitty's like the dark, but would like to see the sun, once in a while. Benjamin has covered up the little window that is at ground level outside, with cardboard. I haz a scared 😿
@@NinjaKittyBonks Fair enough, it's a very good cave to be in:) The conversation I talked about is called "The Perfect Mode of Being | Jonathan Pageau | EP 156". It was almost 3 years ago but, if I remember right, Pageau openly recommends JBP to become a Christian and go to Church. It was an incredible conversation that made internet history.
@@carlotapuig ... Excellent! I fell in love with JBP probably around late 2016, when he was ALL over my subs feed, due to the TAC (Trans Activist Cult) on full attack mode with strawman and every other failure of an argument against his position, so was exposed to LOTS of great people. One of them was Sam Harris. While I was really impressed by his calm demeanor in addressing very hostile / aggressive arguments, I have since abandoned him, due to CATASTROPHIC TDS failure.
.
Anyway, I will make a note of the episode you mentioned and give it a spin around the block, as the cool kids say :)
Pageau always speaks in terms of structures, principles and axioms that govern the world but are not contingent upon material events. Basically the architecture of cognition itself, which reflect inherent patterns in the universe.
Bingo!
@@CScott-wh5yk Cheers 🥂
This is peageaus best. I am floored at how you bring it
Jonathan is trying to give voice to the right hemisphere of the brain , in an environment dominated by left brain people. I wish you luck
Yes, interviewer is trapped in materialistic mindset
The interviewer is known to play devil's advocate. Just because he asks a materialistic question doesn't mean he actually believes it.
If it only were a physiological problem..
it always surprises me anymore when someone can't tell the difference between mind and heart. it's not like we are teaching it in 3rd grade. but this is jp's whole point. heart.
Ah that explains why most of what he says is so nebulous and meandering.
Dr McGilchrist’s monumental tome, The Matter with Things, investigates this matter with exquisite subtle nuances in over 1200 pages. Well worth the effort reading.
"over 1200 pages".
Oh boy..still putting it on my growing TODO list.
Wonderful Jonathan.
Wonderful Benjamin.
Wonderful Calmversation.
❤🎉
Seconded - this was phenomenal fellas
Truly, one of the best channels for cultural and political conversations/interviews.
Thanks for having Jonathan on, Benjamin. I am not on Twitter but heard bits and pieces about the spat between James and Jonathan and wanted to learn more so again, thanks!
Boyce facial expressions were hysterical
They are patented btw 😊
Benjamin you are the best interviewer I know of on UA-cam at least, I love this conversation! Listening, being impartial as is humanly possible and being unafraid to go hard where it's necessary. Please keep it up.
Be a shame if someone were to.. take it to it's logical extreme...
Orthodox catechumen here. This is the way
Same here!☦🙏🏿☦
I was hoping you'd get Jonathan and James both on to talk out their differences and make nice again. Maybe think about doing that? Invite Paul VanderKlay! He can bring his OG Alpha Dad energy and make them sort their shit out. 💁💯
James is too far down the grift hole. He wants to be able to dismiss these and other criticisms by going "lol deez nuts" and blocking people on Twitter. His boomer audience will clap and that's all he needs. Actually addressing these things, talking to Jonathan Pageau, talking to the Distributist, that raises too many uncertainties. It's not worth the work.
It's really the same reason left wingers don't talk to James.
James *explicitly* said no to talking to Pageau. He will not do it.
Maybe in time. And Vander Klay is fantastic, but he would drive Lindsay up the wall. Lindsay deals with facts and logic and anything outside scientific method proofs is like another language to him.
@@chrisc7265He's not a grifter, he's insanely perceptive and insanely autistic
Yes and bring in mutual Andrea with the Bangs
Pageau finally mentioned the topic of race and IQ. Bravo 👏👏👏
That was just an example of the process, it had nothing to do with the content.
@@ssevkin Exactly, he mentioned the topic, that's huge because atheists keep running away from addressing that scientific issue and hoping nobody will notice. Since 2016 they have been breaking all their own rules and that's one of the main reasons why they have fallen.
@@ssevkin Exactly. I don't care that much about that issue either. It's just that the blatant avoidance of that well-researched issue proves who is a hypocrite and doesn't really care about science or truth. It's the litmus test nowadays to see who really is a free thinker or a coward.
Jonathan “How Can I Say This? Pageau. Always a treat.
Jonathan is great, thanks for doing this, wonderful talk overall. Some notes in case they are of help.
4:00 quantity vs. quality - different tools - logic, reason and rationality vs. hope love and faith
Why do you need to 'know' if you are right or wrong? What is 'know' in this context?
Do you want to conform (to know) to 'true love'? This is determinism.
39:30 - yes, it is being used that way, but some states and cities aren't swayed by it. So it doesn't work. Influence exists, because we are all connected, nothing can solve that. ever. at all. Focusing on that only weakens you.
44 - there is no such thing as an individual. You cannot live alone, apart, unconnected.
46 - how about a person is a unity that is also a part of something larger which it requires to survive.
51:50 - religion is inevitable, I have a video called the pattern of religion, which explains this.
1:00 - protestants going to project. They are going to imagine a boogy man, but also, projection.
1:04 - politics is a bad frame for understanding the world - it is too low resolution and can only lead to war.
The word reason does a lot of heavy lifting. We equivocate on it tremendously. Reason as final cause vs. reason as the path we took towards the goal.
Lindsey is great, but wow, he doesn't have an answer at all. He's just identifying against, very important thing to watch for.
If only James L. could see the 'magic' that Jon is describing here, he would be unstoppable. It pains me to watch, but I have faith that James will see that light. Keep at it, Jonny boi and especially pursue that guy. As Jordan P. once said, you are akin to a modern day prophet :)
Really liked the metaphors for religious ritual JP gave in this interview…a family meal, a neighborhood potluck, a basketball game. The example of the soccer (baseball, basketball, etc.) player who seeks victory/glory not for himself as a disconnected solo individual who hogs the ball but as a team player…who shares the ball, passes it, assists, receives it…in the spirit of all for one and one for all…illustrates very well the ancient Christian (especially Eastern Orthodox Christian) meaning of personhood. As JP says, a person in communion of love with other persons, in synergy, in harmony, cooperatively, in service to the higher purpose. Orthodox Christianity perceives God as also a communion of love among the Father (which literally means Source) who is beyond apprehension, the Son (the Word through which the Father-Source speaks creation into being by His Breath (the Spirit). The 3 “Persons” are of one essence and inseparable. It was the Word (Logos-Meaning-Reason) who became part of creation, humanized, incarnate, in Jesus. Jesus spoke symbolically of giving his Spirit to his disciples so that they would become part of his Body and through him integrated into God (theosis) by grace and free will. There is no compulsion in the Gospel. Christianity cannot be imposed on anyone, whether by politics or law or any this-worldly means of power. Jesus said “my Kingdom is not of this world.” This world killed him. He overcomes through his resurrection and his Spirit abides in his people, his Body, his Church. When Christians try to impose this on anyone it contradicts the way of Jesus and fails. Imposition and coercion are inimitable to the Gospel of Christ which is an invitation to the Cross of Faith. As citizens of any nation Christians may vote their consciences of course. God mad humans free to choose, free to sin, and calls us to turn from sin and follow Christ in the way of sacrificial love for all, for the salvation of all. The Christian martyr, unlike the Muslim martyr, witnesses to the way of love through self offering in the manner of the one who was crucified on our behalf. A Christian martyr kills or harms no one. As far as religious toleration of others, there is an ancient Otthodox Christian example of this in the Monastery of St Catherine near Mt Sinai in Egypt. The monks and the Beduins have had a many centuries long cooperative friendly relationship with each other. There has been a mosque for the Beduins within the walls of the Orthodox monastery for centuries. For the most part, the Muslim authorities in Egypt have left the Christian monks live their lives. It’s extremists who disrupt things. As for the record of secularists /atheists on tolerance of differences, we have seen the examples of the Soviets, the Maoists, the Nazis, the Communists, and we are seeing the Wokists today. The problem of imposing power over others is a human problem, sin, and the best solution is repentance, metanoia, spiritual transformation, starting with oneself, as the saints following Christ have proven in history. It’s a free choice, to choose the way of self offering agape love which Jesus did and helps human beings do.
Great conversation! Great topic! Great pushback from Ben for clarity on The Subsidiarity as it relates to real governance. I then love the grass roots, bottom up, answer from Jonathan. Love that.
Great conversation, thank you two
Benjamin, your are a terrific host and conversationalist.
Benjamin manages to pull out the best of the person he interviews
57:04 because we're so used to enlightenment thinking we can only imagine any order as the total state, where the state becomes total god and everyone within it has to believe in the same thing, but christianity was there before the modern state, if you look at the middle ages people had their own little kings, but the kings didn't have total power over them, and so there was this multiplicity of lots of small communities, with more than one allegiance each.
if that's too abstract, then remember lord of the rings, king theoden didn't really have power over his own warriors, they followed him because they wanted to, and if he acted badly then he was left without an army.
That still exists for the elites, but the modern world is heavily centralized so its outside of the reach of most local players.
I find the biggest actual issue of today is the political weakness of the average individual. If individuals held more power, then the government and local areas would become more fluid and authentic.
Always remeber Lord of the Rings
@@assortmentofpillsbutneverb3756 "political weakness of the average individual"
it's a feature of the total state, but such systems destroy themselves, so only after they collapse will more natural arrangements will be able to bloom.
And after that the challenge to avoid the same thing happening again is to resist the temptation of grasping at power to win in war, because the centralized mechanical modern state is far too strong for good familial clans and kingdoms to resist. and that's the crux of the matter.
Can you host Jonathan and the distributist?
this could be good --- they'd need the right topic though
after listening to the second half an obvious topic presents itself: can society be saved from the bottom up?
@@chrisc7265from what I understand we have to weave a basket or something like that.
Pageau was on Dave's channel once, I think.
@@rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr1 wow, you're right. totally missed this one, thanks for the tip.
This was wonderful. Both of you continue to show your quality. Now, I'm off to listen to the James Lindsay discussion.
Love is to will the good of the other, most perfected in reciprocity and mutual growth.
This was so good. Loved the push-back. Loved the responses.
Fascinating, insightful calmversation. Thank you both ❤
Pageau>Lindsay
Not even in the same multiset.😂
would anyone disagree? lindsay is a child-man.
They don't really talk about the same stuff. I mean there's a little bit of an overlap, but James Lindsay's whole thing is the original of Marxist and critical-theory. Pageau's thing is symbolism and re-enchantment. Of course they relate in a way.
I like Pageau more though because he has an Orthodox Christian ethic behind what he discusses. James Lindsay has a sort of ethic too (somewhat Christian ethic), but ironically he's athiest. Lindsay wants all the trappings of Christianity without Christ.
@@St.MartinofToursPrayToGodForUs Yes, you're right. Fortunately, in his recent talk with Benjamin, Lindsay spoke extremely positively about Christianity. Let's see where he is in 5 years. My guess is that it's unavoidable that he continues getting closer to becoming a Christian as many other atheists have done recently.
At 41:55 - one of the criticisms I've heard of ARC (possibly from Dave the Distributist) is that it is not "cleaning your own room". It seems to want to create an alternate WEF/UN/etc., but Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau cannot fix things in Canada (hell, not even Ontario or Quebec), which is the patient zero of this societal decay that ARC is trying to fight against. I would be interested in hearing Jonathan respond to this criticism.
Boyce does a great job of maintaining skepticism of Pageau's ideas while engaging deeply with them. Excellent interview and I can't wait for more.
Your talk around 29 minutes reminds me of something Kruptos wrote. As community disintegrated (which it did because people didn't wish to be restrained by their neighbors), the state took over its role of imposing limits on speech and behavior.
Good pressure in this conversation.
The Christian story of the world is puzzling because it can seem like surrender or death or nothing at all.
I have all of my opinions about the culture and how it has corrupted, but when pressed for an alternative I have no political corrective. The problem is me, and to the extent that I can forgive and love/care the world will transform.
It won’t be my power, it won’t be my politics, it won’t be my right-think, that brings about the revival of the culture.
1:01:25 - I know Benjamin isn't actually arguing this, but it's arguments like this that convince me more and more that the COVID-19 response was essentially some kind of late-stage liberalism inquisition.
The desire to avoid human discernment and judgement through reason / science is the totalitarian urge
Stephen Hicks does a good job in a Triggernometry debate with James Orr (who is also good) a few weeks ago, of explaining/defending how, the assumption when Classical Liberalism first developed (Locke, etc.) was that ppl would have local communities, local ties, different religious groups that provided local cohesion. The point of Liberalism, was and is, for a broader structure of governance to incorporate all of these, without overly imposing on any of them.
This point also relates to the Hamiltonian vs Jeffersonian dichotomy discussed on this channel several months ago. The problem with only relying on these disparate, 'grassroots' level facilitators of cohesion, is that they don't function to bind separate factions together on the scale of nation states. This creates local cohesion, yes, but also has the side effect of increased tribalism, and also obviously leaves a territory more vulnerable to foreign invasion/influence.
Hicks thus emphasizes, that the ideas associated with Classical Liberalism were originally intended to be applied ONLY IN THE SHPERE OF GOVERNANCE, especially governance at the federal level. To flip this equation, (although of course, colloquially speaking, ppl can have more/less "liberal" attitudes in their daily lives,) would often produce results as comical as when Christopher Hitchens began receiving requests to act as officiator at ppl's weddings. 'The priest is dead, long live the priest'.
A common heuristic, is that socialism works better in the private sphere (thus the lowercase, connotative attitude for the most part, not the proper noun/socioeconomic system,) and Capitalism works better in the public sphere, because you're not sacrificing for everyone, the way you do for your family unit. The obvious nuance is that, first world countries can blend the two somewhat, with social programs.
An additional, similar heuristic, is that Liberalism is most functional at the national level, and Conservatism at the local level. Once again, notice therefore, the greater prevalence of "small c" conservatism. So it is a safe assumption, that ppl with dispositions that tend toward Liberalism will be more interested to engage society at the macro level more often, and Conservatives vice versa. We certainly see this. We still need both Hamilton and Jefferson types. What would the pot be without the kettle, the peanut butter without the caviar? Total goddam anarchy, that's what.
You're getting at the problem here --- liberalism requires something binding and cohesive to everything underneath at the same level as the sovereign --- so for example, a national government needs something binding the nation together (ethnicity, though you could argue religion might suffice). Most agree that liberalism worked well when it was operating under strong Christian societies. Local institutions are good and necessary, and they can be diverse to some extent, but they must all share the same higher purpose. If they don't you get into the situation of two or more competing groups, where some are favored by power over others, which leads to endless strife and discontent.
Unfortunately liberalism has the property of constantly wearing away at the very thing it needs to thrive (in this case, the Christian foundation). It is very much not the tool we need right now --- it's well understood historically that a massively demoralized democratic society is best turned around by a strong monarchy.
@@chrisc7265 You've got a little bit of Curtis on your Yarvin.
@@Jules-Needs-Internet-Installed Yarvin is the meme, but the idea that you can solve the problems of democracy (demoralization, deracination, atomization) with more democracy would be laughed at by pretty much every civilizational thinker from Aristotle to Spengler. Yarvin only gives a voice to a well understood concept.
@@chrisc7265 I know that Yarvin is the god of all NRx-type fans, and also has a brain that is too large for any human skull cavity. But his definition of "monarch" would include, for example, FDR. So I say, fine. I don't get the impression that's what you're talking abt, so I'm compelled to disagree.
@@chrisc7265 I agree with you (mostly) and to fight the disintergration with any kind of individualism (democracy here or the liberal individual) I do not think ethnicity/religion are the only binders. I enjoy Adam Curtis and his look at the shift from offering a brighter future to offering to protect us from nightmares as a political stratigy.
There has to be a metaphysic of some kind many have been tried. It has to be a common goal of the civilisation. Having a unified identifier is not enough. These come in lots of forms but it is about the myths of a society that generate the meaning. Myths of purpose and morals.
Hendonism and avoiding suffering, chasing pleasure and the Bernays idea of controlling the masses and the Neoliberal wealth creation idea is not enough.
Liberalism has some solid idea's for a cohesive society of different kinds. But the idea that it is enough is provably untrue. Men will die for a brighter future for the society at large and women enforce those social norms.
But not many people think about them in any rational way. It has to be myths. A story with a destination. Though I do have to say any religion with a claim that it is the only way is problematic from the get go. I enjoy the middle eastern religions as wisdom traditions. But as a way to run the world at large... no thanks.
I do not think a pure return to chistianity in it's historic form will solve anything. What can I say I find the middle east religious history to be way to dogmatic and the foundation for all the problems we have today. All we have now is christianity with god shaved off.
A new form of it might work. But definately not one on solas scriptura or litteralism.
thank you, Jonathan. ❤
James Lindsay likes his worship to remain unconscious
That was way more interesting than I thought it would be! Even as an atheist! Maybe cuz he's from Québec too!
What is of interest - has Truth woven in through it
Thanks !
The interviewer plays devils advocate and i like that. Makes Pageau express himself more.
This was a great listen!!!
This was a great one.
Great conversation. The world never stopped being enchanted.
Best explanation of Abraham and Isaac. I've always thought that story was kinda wtf, but I think I can accept it now.
Timer stamp?
This discussion is an excellent example on why clarity of concepts is very important. Take for instance the discussion of ‘sacrifice’ and the different examples that Jonathon puts under the same term. At one end there is choosing to bring good food to a shared meal with family, and at the other end there is the ritual murdering of your child. How can these both be connected when they are clearly so very separated in almost every aspect? This lack of clarity, perhaps even unwillingness to be specific, allows for flowery language that is ambiguous and leaves the door open for bad ideas to come in. At one point Jon asks what the point of a nation state is and even the US? That country in particular has a set of founding ideas, laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and then operationalized in the Constitution, which is solely about ideas rather than race or ethnicity. It’s no wonder that humanity keeps trying to answer these questions over millennia, but if you are unwilling to perform the thinking to use clear terms then of course no one could get to an answer. Except for Ayn Rand, who has made all the assumptions explicit. Her non-fiction uses understandable words to precisely convey concepts, done so in an impeachable way, and if Jon would meaningfully grapple with them then it is possible to actually get clarity of thought and values.
Jonathan, thank you for putting Aktobe's coat of arms in the background. Respect.
It turns out we are a living mystery so it actually is rational to live the mystery ... reason turned against itself looks like a kind of absurdity, but paradoxically it dissolves paradox... when we put the Master in his right place and the emissary in service to the Master - reality pops into focus. Faith is the axiom from which all reason flows ... reason can not penetrate the ground from which it issued forth ...
Episode 3 of season two where the young David Carradine beats the shit out of a drunk in a bar. Am I right? Or am I right, 'grasshopper'!
Funnily enough, I can't find relevance in the reference
have Lindsay and Vervaeke together in dialogue.. imo Vervaeke is far likelier to get thru to him than Pageau, even before their curent spat..
loved this description of the disjoint in society. As rings true in my experience of Jungian thought, to Deny humanity its irrationality, and its unreasonableness is to be willfully blind and invite calamity. "Art","Spirit"or some such words, plus irrational creative thinking here is needed...and what does that look like?? I say this is I beg for people to be reasonable and rational and bang my head up against their walls.
I would pay GOOD money to get James reaction of this.
You would pay for a petty dismissive tweet?
@@rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr1 no, I’d like to see the ontological differences between Jon and James presuppositions laid out in discourse.
The way in which artworks are perceived by audiences as unified things is an interesting case study for JPs point at 11 mins. Art, especially the weird modern, postmodern, and contemporary art, often is perceived as unity even when the artist tries to stop this mystical unification before hand. DuChamp is a perfect example of one who failed to enlighten his audience and now the urinal is an enchanted part of the art history canon.
No one has managed to get out this much political talk out of Jonathan. Awesome
"Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart" - 1 Peter 1:22 (ESV) "Earnestly" in the Greek is "ektenos" which means at full stretch, all out manner with intense strain. That is how hard we are to love each other within the Church. Love is sacrificial. "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends." - John 15:13 (ESV). Love isn't something you feel, it's something you do.
Society will not be transformed by legislation, but by transformed people. Individually, one transformed person at a time.
Pageau needs a new camera
You won me as a subscriber on your listening ability and interviewing questions on ARC etc.
Absolutely great content!!! Thank you 🙏!!!
The comment on postmodern tactics is so good and true!
Waiting for my preordered Snow White ! Excited😃
Great guest, Benjamin. Boyce Scouts of America. Boom.
James is our Defense Against the Dark Arts professor and Jonathan is magic. The conflict arises there.
Jonathan is not magic. It seems rational thinkers need to be able to tell the difference between magic and Christians debunking magic. Can sound similar to the outsider. Great example are those screenshots Lindsay reposted of Matthieu Pageau writing about the oroboros as a "gotcha." Just read it, he's destroying the idea that the oroboros can produce anything good or useful.
@@sillygoose4472 you're over-thinking the Harry Potter reference.
@@ChristopherHaylesI haven't got to the Harry Potter part yet, I'm addressing the comment above and my point stands
@@sillygoose4472 I don't disagree with your point. My comment was the Harry Potter reference. Just a low resolution summary of the conflict. Of course there's more to it if you want to go into detail. Have a good weekend.
@@ChristopherHayles When I get to the part you're taking about or just finish the podcast I'll come back to reread. You too
There is no humility without the fear of God. In that way, Jonathan is correct when he says that the world will be changed through repentance for your own sins.
Benjamin you might want to check out the Great Adventure Bible/Bible in a Year podcast for your bible study. It's an arrangement of the entire Bible that arranges the stories into a more narrative order which I found easier to follow and understand and I think might be more digestible for young men.
Very toothsome episode by the way, I always appreciate everything Jonathan has to say
I would really enjoy a conversation between Jonathan and James on Christian nationalism. James is speaking about something very specific with different definitions. James deals with the definition muddling subversive ideologies that have been destroying the probability of unity. I think you might find you have more common ground than you believe, especially when it comes to hermeticism and Gnosticism. Also the marxification of the church.
I think maybe a simple way to understand this is to think in terms of scope or scale. For instance, if someone is talking about human beings and the question of why they act the way they do is brought up, someone may start talking about chemicals that get released when socializing. That would be choosing a smaller scale which acts as a mechanism for whats happening on the human scale. Another person might start taking in terms of anxiety, desire, etc. this would be speaking on the scale of the human experience, a physiological scale. Another person may start talking in terms of overarching forces that move people towards different ways of relating, this would be talking about forces for good and forces for evil, or life and death, order and chaos etc. This would be talking in spiritual scale, a scale in which humans and human actions are inseparable from larger forces. As I understand it, symbolic language is essentially the use of an object known on a smaller scale, to illuminate ones understanding of something that exists on a larger scale. For instance, an animal might symbolize a nation, because an animal is known on a smaller scale and can help on understand the nation which is of a larger scale and thus more difficult to understand directly. The point being that mythological/symbolic language will always have its part to play in understanding larger scale reality. Materialist cant talk about the stars, only what they're made of and the mechanisms that act on them, they cant talk about people, they can only understand on the small scale. Symbolic language / myth allows us to understand and express reality at a larger scale, at the scale relationships between humans and the cosmic powers. Of course this is just a simple way of putting it and not exhaustive. thanks
I missed it. 😢
Only 35 minutes in, but I really wish Pageau would counter Ben's claims about Woke just being Christianity without the cross. That is such a ridiculous proposition. Wokeism is all about freedom from obligation, worship of self, creating a paradise in *this* world, and really shares very little with the core beliefs of Christianity. It's an extension of the enlightenment and materialist atheism if anything.
Woke is not "just Christianity without the Cross" (it's much less than that). But it is a Christian heresy. Like Puritanism (from which it sprang), Communism, Liberalism--and many other isms in Modernity--it is a focus on a part of Christianity and a rejection of the whole. There is no Woke without Christian morality and revelation.
I could quite happily watch your cats playfighting for the whole of the podcast while listening to you guys.
Benjamin has been extremely classy addressing that nasty online spat. James kinda acted like a child and Jonathan is being very gracious. Sounds like James needs a bit more Jesus in his life 😅
Jay Dyer would be a great guest to speak on the shortfalls of the enlightenment
Has he chilled out a little with age? I haven’t listened to him in years but he used to be so combative that it was exhausting. The Jay I remember wouldn’t be as receptive to Benjamins tough questions as Jonathan was here.
❤❤❤
Have a crazy good
Idea for Johnathan.
Draw these talks out while you give them
I think this discussion would be better with someone like Jay Dyer. What Jonathan is talking about here is the Humean 'is-ought' distinction i.e. there is a difference between descriptive empirical facts about the world vs prescriptive moral 'oughts.' The question of what 'works' is a moral claim. It assumes that certain things 'working' towards certain ends is a 'good' thing, which is a moral value judgement.
Love is that which binds.
Transmen are love!
Transubstantiation is Love.... where the meaning is hosted by and become transcendent of is material accidents...
@@benjaminlquinlan8702 Thank you! Truly some of the words ever spoken.
I personally think "Respect is that which binds" would be a much more effective statement as genuine love is 9/10ths respect, I would profer, and "love" means very little as its a very abstract concept that can mean anything from a tingling stomach to... well, pretty much anything. ...Respect however is quite well defined.
As an example of that... "Does so-and-so love me?" Is a near unanswerable question... even if someone answers "yes" they may not mean what you mean. "Does so-and-so respect me?" Is however answerable, more, it's provable. ...I think respect is therefore a much more important and meaningful thing that we should seek... rather than making near meaningless statements regarding that very vague word "love".
@@JesseP.Watson When I heard "Love is that which binds" I had no idea what he meant. Like, is he talking about glue?
When I read "Respect is that which binds", I at least had an idea of what you might mean.
Are we talking about social cohesion? Binding as in what holds us together? Or am I off track?
@@Lumbergh42 Scuse me... a current thought I was projecting there. Yea, I think it makes sense in terms of social cohesion... it could also make sense in terms of what we keep I suppose... I love making films, I keep doing it, I am bound to the craft by my love of film. ...Though I doubt he meant that.
In terms of creating long lasting relationships, if 'binding' is meant in that sense, aye... I at least have come to feel that respect is key... after chasing love for many years and then getting a sudden shock in the realisation that there was a severe lack of respect, whether or not there was something that might be called love... so I decided to be very careful in the future to be around those with respect for me, and in terms of the opposite sex, I think that means a strong form of love might just be possible.
Pretty obvious stuff... but took me a lot of years to come round to recognising that respect is not actually a pre-requisite with friends or "love"... particularly concerning the opposite sex in today's world... but without respect, and it running both ways, nothing will ever work. ...but I digress.
[typo]
51:18 not sure if anyone has actually answered his question “can anyone really answer what love is?“ But the Church does give us a definition: to will the good of another, for the sake of the good.
Robert Nisbet, "The Quest for Community," speaks to this topic - including the cost of losing community.
As if the creator of the universe needs humans to impose his worship on other humans. Christ is King
Christ is King of Kings
Revelation 19:13 , 16
Jonathon is more enlightened than the enlightenment theorist James Lindsey.
How? Jonathon does not explain why he think any of the things he think. He just reflect every question, to make you put the answer there. But he does not show he believe in anything.
Example: saying "this picture is beautiful". You ask why, then he say "why would you say this picture is beautiful?" You give a reason and he say "see, you think this picture is beautiful".
It is the same trick soothsayers use, to make you think they know the answer, when all they do is make you give your opinion, then agree with them.
He never answer anything.
@@haraldbredsdorff2699 his stuff is more difficult to understand than most people have time for.
@@rbaggio7777 Then he should explain it. He does not.
All he does is reflect questions, to make you put your answer,
so that it turns out to be wrong, he can claim you misunderstood him, rather than admit he make a mistake.
It is trickery bullshit.
@@haraldbredsdorff2699 stop listening to him then. You clearly don’t get it.
@@rbaggio7777 Oh, I get it. You are easy to manipulate, and believe he give you answers, when all he does is make you answer your own questions.
And when it turns out bad, it is your fault for not understanding the deeper meaning he never told you.
Christ did not impose order from the top down. He put on the weakness of human flesh, was born and laid in a feeding trough, lived a humble life and yielded himself to death on the cross to reveal the Truth about how we fit into the cosmic order.
51:10 - I can answer: Love is the cross.
You want to try and understand, or relate to, or emulate love? Look to the cross.
Amen! God is love and the ultimate demonstration of love was giving himself as the ultimate sacrifice so that he could give grace and mercy to wicked wretches like you and me.
“This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.” - John 15:12-13
Come on James just kiss and make up already, we need both of you
Where Benjamin is trying to stand, these established systems seem like prescriptions for living. However, from within them you can understand that they are actually descriptions of reality but just differ in their accuracy.
Well put.
Love is placing importance or value on things outside of instrumental benefit. Love is regard for things outside our benefit.
Love is "willing the good of the other for the others sake".
Wow great conversation! Jonathan is a lion in this one!
In Orthodox theology there is a strong emphasis on knowing something apohaticaly. Therefore we wouldn’t necessarily know 100% formula for correct hierarchy of virtues or actions, but we more often know when the attention or hierarchy is misplaced.
A person is an entity created by God in his image.
All of the information the postmodernists and enlightenment thinkers are looking for is in the Bible. We already worked all these questions out. Asking “what is a person” or questions like it over and over and having hours long convos repeatedly over questions that have been answered thousands of years ago is neither deep or enlightened.
Yes, the answer to every question is in the Bible which is the inspired, infallible word of God. The moment God gave me that revelation completely transformed my life.
1:07:10 Forgiveness: the rule that survives its own judgment.
Are those two cats Jim and Johnny?