I read Plato's Critique of Impure Reason this Spring and it was a really, really important book for me: I went back and reread the Republic, after that, with completely new eyes. Wonderful to listen to this conversation! Thank you.
56:30 my wife gets to the point of hard stopping me and saying, “ok. That’s enough. I’m full.” ie “I didn’t care to begin with, but I love you and listen as long as I can.”
Close to the end reminded me of this sentence from a book I was going through with a friend “the self-compassion workbook”. “Suffering = pain x resistance” I will eat it all. Great talk, Ken.
Thanks for your videos. I think I recall that you are a physician of some sorts. I am a 68 yo retired ER physician. I am also a homeless Evangelical, my criterion for a church now, is that I do not want to be embarrassed if I bring a visitor. So, I am not attending anywhere regularly though I have zoom fellowship, and take communion at a local Catholic church. My only spiritual philosophic-theologic enrichment the last few years are catholic authors like Schindler, Marcel, Schmitz, Blondel and Balthasar and others. A few thoughts as you are climbing the mount. Look at the Gospels mostly, and some of the NT also. If there was an incarnation, then Neoplatonism should be all over the Gospels, not shoehorned in. “The one-good all the way down and matter all the way up.” Is a Schindler or Vervaeke quote. That’s the incarnation. Truth is kenotic. There should be a category of epistemology called kenotic epistemology. Knowledge is not an accumulation of facts but being a channel of light and truth. The kenosis of Philippians 2 is emptiness to be full. That’s the nature of truth as its given and received. We are empty, and then full, and then give out of our fullness, which is really emptiness. The life of empty and full, not just as a nice paradox. The women giving 2 cents to the temple, is poor and rich, empty and full. Feeding 5000 is empty and full. The exhortations by Paul to be clay vessels, dying though living, living sacrifices Romans 12 and being temples of spirit. Its, all there and even better. I attend a community philosophy group weekly with mostly depressed, lonely, childless, bitter atheists. My very, very, good arguments never convince. But when I witness kenoticaly , pointing to beauty, light and glory, whatever the topic, they are moved. Stephen dying is the model, seeing glory while empty and full, pointing at what we see has power. Jesus primary mission was as a witness to the Father, even the cross was about the whitnss of glory. See John 12:23 and following, it’s all about glory. Gabriel Marcel is a great help. I will post something about what you and David discussed, the difference between Being and Having Richard
What a wonderful and enlightening conversation! DC Schindler is very impressive. I appreciate hearing his personal story and the framing of Christianity as primarily focused on love versus escaping the ego, which I believe is true. To use Keller’s great term, there is a “self-forgetfulness” in love when we are engaged in what Simone Weil called “Attention,” but this is different from focusing on the deconstruction of the self primarily. In fact, we need a self so that we have something through which we could forget about it while in Attention of the other. I also appreciated the thoughts on prayer, the feeling that “a gift is being received” in the act of deep writing, the importance of regularity, and emphasis on beauty inherently entailing surprise. I also really liked the point that a humble act like cleaning the dishes is the same kind of act as a mystical experience, even if the acts are different experientially-I think that is very important, and again makes me think of Weil’s “Attention.” And I really liked that notion of Agape including an interruption that brings us back to reality-that was excellent, truly. Well done to you both!
Thanks again, Ken. I came across David's work through John Vervaeke and spent the second half of last year working through Love and the Postmodern Predicament. So it was a great surprise when all 3 of you had a conversation recently. Fingers crossed for round two at some stage 😁
Doing the dishes is sacramental--amen! This is why one of the most moving parts of the Mass--to me--is when the priest cleans the chalice and everyone stays kneeling. Washing up after the meal is sacred and is transfigured by the Mass. This moment of the Mass has kept me sane as I wash up for hours every week. (I am a husband and father too!) DC Schindler is amazing. Thanks for asking him such probing--and personal--questions.
Very pleased to see you speaking with David again, please keep pushing him to talk to more people in "This Little Corner of the Internet". :) As someone who still identifies God as impersonal and synonymous with The Good I would love to hear more conversation about what can sufficiently transform someone from viewing God as impersonal to a personal one as exemplified in Christianity, is this what the 'Leap of Faith' is? You just choose to view The Good as a personal God? How does this help in coping with tragedy I wonder? And specifically how are you informed into matters of eschatology? What substantiates any claims made thereof? Thank you.
48:29 - Re: Being pulled out of your own life. This so spot on. Our finitude binds us to the particulars of the mundane & concrete. We must learn how to abide in the experiences that aren’t enriched with heightened sensory emotional phenomena. Getting only glimpses of beauty (dagnabbit all) protects its allusivity.
It seems to me Mahayana Buddhism is precisely about "integrating the self and others", which is also the reason why some of its followers called Buddhist schools focusing on "eliminating the self" "Hinayana".
I think we just keep going around the same ancient insight repeated in many traditions. You polish the mirror of your being, dispose yourself properly and the beauty will gradually become reflected (come to inhabit) us.
There is a difference between Being and Having: we have a house, but we share a home, we bring and embody hospitality. Gabriel Marcel Plato/Stanford encyclopedia Gabriel Marcel discusses being in a variety of contexts; however, one of the more illustrative points of entry into this issue is the distinction between being and having.[6] In some cases this distinction is one that is obvious and therefore not particularly illuminating. For example, most people would readily acknowledge a difference between having a house and being hospitable. However, there are other cases where the distinction between having something and being something is much more significant. For example, when we hope, we do not have hope. We are hope. Similarly, we do not have a belief. We are a belief. Marcel’s hallmark illustration of being and having is one that actually straddles the distinction between them: “my body.” My body, insofar as it is my body, is both something that I have and something that I am, and cannot be adequately accounted for using either of these descriptions alone. I can look at my body in a disassociated manner and see it instrumentally. However, in doing so, in distancing myself from it in order to grasp it as object, as something I have, it ceases to be “my” body. I can have “a” body, but not “my” body. As soon as I make the connection that the body in question is my body, not a body, it can no longer be something that I have pure and simple-this body also is me, it is what I am. The ambiguous role played by my body not only points out the distinction between being and having, but also shows that we relate to other things and persons differently in these two modes. Having corresponds to things that are completely external to me. I have things that I possess, that I can dispose of-and this should make it clear that I cannot “have,” for example, another person (have a wife as opposed to being a husband). Having implies this possession because “having always implies an obscure notion of assimilation” We can encounter others and assimilate them, but I can also encounter others on the level of being (as husband, as friend, as encourager and as prophet). “Being” with others as encounter is not purely external, it is played out in terms of your given presence, your sharing, and your participation-not a captive assimilation. Both being and having are legitimate ways to encounter things in the world; however, the misapplication of these two modes of comportment can have disastrous consequences.
I read Plato's Critique of Impure Reason this Spring and it was a really, really important book for me: I went back and reread the Republic, after that, with completely new eyes. Wonderful to listen to this conversation! Thank you.
56:30 my wife gets to the point of hard stopping me and saying, “ok. That’s enough. I’m full.” ie “I didn’t care to begin with, but I love you and listen as long as I can.”
Close to the end reminded me of this sentence from a book I was going through with a friend “the self-compassion workbook”.
“Suffering = pain x resistance”
I will eat it all.
Great talk, Ken.
Thanks for your videos. I think I recall that you are a physician of some sorts. I am a 68 yo retired ER physician. I am also a homeless Evangelical, my criterion for a church now, is that I do not want to be embarrassed if I bring a visitor. So, I am not attending anywhere regularly though I have zoom fellowship, and take communion at a local Catholic church. My only spiritual philosophic-theologic enrichment the last few years are catholic authors like Schindler, Marcel, Schmitz, Blondel and Balthasar and others. A few thoughts as you are climbing the mount. Look at the Gospels mostly, and some of the NT also. If there was an incarnation, then Neoplatonism should be all over the Gospels, not shoehorned in. “The one-good all the way down and matter all the way up.” Is a Schindler or Vervaeke quote. That’s the incarnation. Truth is kenotic. There should be a category of epistemology called kenotic epistemology. Knowledge is not an accumulation of facts but being a channel of light and truth. The kenosis of Philippians 2 is emptiness to be full. That’s the nature of truth as its given and received. We are empty, and then full, and then give out of our fullness, which is really emptiness. The life of empty and full, not just as a nice paradox. The women giving 2 cents to the temple, is poor and rich, empty and full. Feeding 5000 is empty and full. The exhortations by Paul to be clay vessels, dying though living, living sacrifices Romans 12 and being temples of spirit. Its, all there and even better. I attend a community philosophy group weekly with mostly depressed, lonely, childless, bitter atheists. My very, very, good arguments never convince. But when I witness kenoticaly , pointing to beauty, light and glory, whatever the topic, they are moved. Stephen dying is the model, seeing glory while empty and full, pointing at what we see has power. Jesus primary mission was as a witness to the Father, even the cross was about the whitnss of glory. See John 12:23 and following, it’s all about glory. Gabriel Marcel is a great help. I will post something about what you and David discussed, the difference between Being and Having
Richard
What a wonderful and enlightening conversation! DC Schindler is very impressive. I appreciate hearing his personal story and the framing of Christianity as primarily focused on love versus escaping the ego, which I believe is true. To use Keller’s great term, there is a “self-forgetfulness” in love when we are engaged in what Simone Weil called “Attention,” but this is different from focusing on the deconstruction of the self primarily. In fact, we need a self so that we have something through which we could forget about it while in Attention of the other. I also appreciated the thoughts on prayer, the feeling that “a gift is being received” in the act of deep writing, the importance of regularity, and emphasis on beauty inherently entailing surprise. I also really liked the point that a humble act like cleaning the dishes is the same kind of act as a mystical experience, even if the acts are different experientially-I think that is very important, and again makes me think of Weil’s “Attention.” And I really liked that notion of Agape including an interruption that brings us back to reality-that was excellent, truly. Well done to you both!
Thanks again, Ken. I came across David's work through John Vervaeke and spent the second half of last year working through Love and the Postmodern Predicament. So it was a great surprise when all 3 of you had a conversation recently. Fingers crossed for round two at some stage 😁
"His empty hands are open in constant gratitude for what is greater than they can hold".
Doing the dishes is sacramental--amen! This is why one of the most moving parts of the Mass--to me--is when the priest cleans the chalice and everyone stays kneeling. Washing up after the meal is sacred and is transfigured by the Mass. This moment of the Mass has kept me sane as I wash up for hours every week. (I am a husband and father too!) DC Schindler is amazing. Thanks for asking him such probing--and personal--questions.
Very pleased to see you speaking with David again, please keep pushing him to talk to more people in "This Little Corner of the Internet". :)
As someone who still identifies God as impersonal and synonymous with The Good I would love to hear more conversation about what can sufficiently transform someone from viewing God as impersonal to a personal one as exemplified in Christianity, is this what the 'Leap of Faith' is? You just choose to view The Good as a personal God? How does this help in coping with tragedy I wonder? And specifically how are you informed into matters of eschatology? What substantiates any claims made thereof? Thank you.
Thank you so much for your inquiring mind and such a wonderful discussion. I really enjoyed this.
Thank you Shari!!
Great conversation Ken & David! Thank you 🙏
48:29 - Re: Being pulled out of your own life.
This so spot on. Our finitude binds us to the particulars of the mundane & concrete. We must learn how to abide in the experiences that aren’t enriched with heightened sensory emotional phenomena. Getting only glimpses of beauty (dagnabbit all) protects its allusivity.
I also love John O’Donahue! Love his audiobook Beauty:The Invisible Embrace.
Yes!! All of his work has been so helpful to me, Anam Cara is a returning source for me
Thank you both. I loved this so much 💘
It seems to me Mahayana Buddhism is precisely about "integrating the self and others", which is also the reason why some of its followers called Buddhist schools focusing on "eliminating the self" "Hinayana".
I think we just keep going around the same ancient insight repeated in many traditions. You polish the mirror of your being, dispose yourself properly and the beauty will gradually become reflected (come to inhabit) us.
To me your comment seems a contradiction of John 14:6. Am I just misreading it?
There is a difference between Being and Having: we have a house, but we share a home, we bring and embody hospitality. Gabriel Marcel Plato/Stanford encyclopedia
Gabriel Marcel discusses being in a variety of contexts; however, one of the more illustrative points of entry into this issue is the distinction between being and having.[6] In some cases this distinction is one that is obvious and therefore not particularly illuminating. For example, most people would readily acknowledge a difference between having a house and being hospitable. However, there are other cases where the distinction between having something and being something is much more significant. For example, when we hope, we do not have hope. We are hope. Similarly, we do not have a belief. We are a belief.
Marcel’s hallmark illustration of being and having is one that actually straddles the distinction between them: “my body.” My body, insofar as it is my body, is both something that I have and something that I am, and cannot be adequately accounted for using either of these descriptions alone. I can look at my body in a disassociated manner and see it instrumentally. However, in doing so, in distancing myself from it in order to grasp it as object, as something I have, it ceases to be “my” body. I can have “a” body, but not “my” body. As soon as I make the connection that the body in question is my body, not a body, it can no longer be something that I have pure and simple-this body also is me, it is what I am.
The ambiguous role played by my body not only points out the distinction between being and having, but also shows that we relate to other things and persons differently in these two modes. Having corresponds to things that are completely external to me. I have things that I possess, that I can dispose of-and this should make it clear that I cannot “have,” for example, another person (have a wife as opposed to being a husband).
Having implies this possession because “having always implies an obscure notion of assimilation” We can encounter others and assimilate them, but I can also encounter others on the level of being (as husband, as friend, as encourager and as prophet). “Being” with others as encounter is not purely external, it is played out in terms of your given presence, your sharing, and your participation-not a captive assimilation.
Both being and having are legitimate ways to encounter things in the world; however, the misapplication of these two modes of comportment can have disastrous consequences.
🧡
This was incredible
I'm so glad you found it so Gage
Second! :)
Nice!
Perhaps the Eros works in such a way that it draws out the potential of the other. This is the desire of one who loves agapically.
Can we baptize the word seduction & use it here?
@@notvadersson do it!
Therefore, behold, I will allure her, Will bring her into the wilderness, And speak comfort to her.
Hosea 2:14
God brings order out of chaos. Victor Hugo in Les Mis: to love another person is to see the face of God. Parents wanting what’s best for children