Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
Superb, Mr. Pageau!!!!!!!!!!!! Comment I just sent my brother with a link to your convo: Pageau's analysis in this video closely resembles the analysis of C. S. Lewis in his essay entitled "Membership" where Lewis argues that our "membership" in the Body of Christ is taken from a Greek word that signifies “organic membership” like an organ in a body rather than a member of a club, which is the meaning we often give the word “member”. You can make the case that there is no real social identity and therefore no real social unity outside of convent community, and Pageau hints at the idea without developing it. Pageau pinpoints the absence of UNITY as our greatest poverty, and he addresses an issue that torments me a lot, because in my opinion, politics is the religion of modernity, and people are so infected with the Zeitgeist, that they simply can’t conceive of any kind of unity other than the political kind. And this comes out so clearly in this video as Pageau’s interlocuter becomes frustrated and keeps insisting that Pageau specify who is going to have the political power in his social vision. He keeps insinuating that Pageau’s social vision isn’t real. C’mon, he insists, someone’s got to be in charge! Pageau’s rejoinder is that the proper system from a Christian perspective is one of subsidiarity, which entails a kind of devolution of authority to different levels on the one hand, but also on the other hand, a recognition that not all authority is POLITICAL. Not all authority is administered at gunpoint. Without explicitly targeting the Christian nationalism idea, Pageau rightly points out that the nation state is a very recent phenomenon, and Pageau holds that, paradoxically, the rise of the nation state is at least in part due to atomization and anarchy in the culture. A healthy civil society is made up of many “little platoons” as Edmund Burke put it, of family, church, community, etc. People find their identity in the little platoons, and ironically and perhaps counterintuitively, if the little platoons disintegrate, people turn to the state. One of the most pathetic features of so-called “Christian Nationalism” is that it looks to the nation to restore unity and in so doing shows how little self-aware and bereft of wisdom it is. These devotees of rightwing political religion are like anemic people who think they need a bleeding to drain out the bad humors. At one point, Pageau laughs out loud at the idea that “Christian nation” is the solution. Like, seriously? You’re going to force THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY MILLION PEOPLE to be like you? Really? So he makes a prudential argument, in other words, that Christian Nationalism is not phronetic. It’s a fool’s errand. No war is just if you have no chance of winning it. But he tackles the idea from a different angle as well: our authority hierarchy is in the City of God. You can see the other guy getting impatient, because it just sounds like so much rhetoric to him. He kind of, sort of gets Jordan Peterson’s “make your bed” argument, but still suspects that Pageau is skirting the real issues. But that comes full circle back to the theme of UNITY with which these two started there conversation. UNITY, Pageau, explains comes from a HIERARCHICAL VIEW OF THE GOOD. That’s internal. THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THAT. You can’t impose it. Why not? Because if you don’t have that internal measuring stick that allows you to rank order goods, you will never, ever attain real unity. There is NO SUCH THING as unity without rank-ordered values. In Scholastic language, we could say that final cause begets formal cause. There is no form without purpose. Purpose creates form. Pageau starts the conversation by pointing out that even the individual person is fragmented if he lacks purpose. You want social unity without integral individuals? Forget it. Won’t happen. If Conservative Christians were a more reflexive lot, we would have fought the onslaught of WOKE with a very sober and focused emphasis on subsidiarity, which would take the form of seeking radical federalism in the political arena. But no, our side was so intent on the quixotic impossible task of “winning” and making the entire continent look like some goofy fake memory of what the 1950s looked like (and never really was). We cannot attain the unity we desperately need by political means. Our only chance and hope was to get politics out of the way, so that we could achieve it by OTHER means, and we blew it by electing Donald Trump and declaring a jihad against leftists. All that achieved was to bring the cause of Christ into disrepute and sink the Christian community into deep confusion.
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.
Saint = Santo (in Spanish) which is translated as Holy in English. So the idea that you need to become holy to improve the world makes complete sense. It is clear that being unholy will absolutely not get us to a better place.
This interview is one of your best. It is also mistitled. Boyce’s drive to make you positively state the essential thing makes it more about beginnings than an ending. God is good!
34:43 Most important part right here. Christ did not come to abolish the Law. The Law is necessary to expose you to your own sin (your own shortcomings/falling short). He wants you to understand how far short you fall, to acknowledge your sin, and to acknowledge that you do not have the power in yourself to stop sinning (to stop falling short, to be perfect in all things at all times). None of us have the power within us to be perfect in all things at all times. But keeping the narrow road in sight and working your way back onto it, or as close as you can get to it, is important. When you stop caring about the narrow road, when you throw away the Law, you're just wandering in the wilderness.
You pulled a Sunday school lesson out of thoroughly esoteric discourse. Perhaps a further delve would benefit. Maybe the relative insignificance of the nature of the law compared to the significance within the breadth of unity amongst a populous with any nature of law would be the step forward rather than your rehashing of the lessons countless children encounter every weekend.
Perfection is possible, otherwise we would not be called to it. This is not a hypothetical. The Mother of God was sinless and obeyed the law without error but would not resurrect herself from the dead. Only her Son can do that.
But yet Jesus said, “So be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” To “be” is to “do”. It is an action. Not a belief, not a feeling, not a claim. He also said, “If you love me, you will obey my commands.” It’s possible many who are certain of their own salvation “through faith” have been misled.
I loved this so much!! I’ve never listened to Benjamin Boyce before, but I do appreciate how he broke down Jonathan’s very metaphorical language and got to the core of his thinking. Absolutely wonderful discussion!!
I want to see The Symbolic World press publish a version of Silence the female knight. Probably doesn't fit with Snow White and Jack and the Bean Stock but maybe someday. A symphonic retelling of the Arthurian romance stories would be useful. Those stories haven't been told very well in modern times. Neil Gaimen did something cool with Norse Mythology. He retold those stories in a single narrative. That dude is Pageau's nemesis.
There are no individuals. There are persons. Persons, by nature, are in relationship with other persons. Benjamin should interview Christian Smith, of Notre Dame. His book "What is a person" is excellent.
Hello Mr. Pageau, I had a thought while you were mentioning that you meditated on St. Christopher, which was that you in some ways act in a similar manner. You have, in my opinion, helped/carried many people across the water to the other side, as did the Saint. And then this line popped into my head; "Whatsoever you do, to the least of my brothers, that you do unto Me". Make what you will of that, but felt compelled to add this to the comments incase you read them.
On another note, have you ever thought of the similarities of the Golem myths to the structure and use of a company? In my mind, the body is constructed/fashioned in the the image of a man, and given life with a paper with magic words placed in its head. A company/golem can act very much like a man in a legal sense, and can have a spirit of a sort. It can be used for good or ill, and can sometimes get out of the control of its master/creator (corporate takeovers and the like), and run amok. It can be destroyed by the removal of the paper from its head, as a company would also be destroyed by the removal of its magic paper. I've often thought that many of our ills are caused by our corporate laws allowing our golems to be too powerful. The original use of distributing risk among investors isn't bad, but masters of golems sometimes use their golems as a shield or scapegoat to veil their nefarious actions or to take punishment that should rightfully be on the master(s) themselves.
Interesting conversation. At some points it even took on an almost adversarial tone, but Johnathan handled it with grace. At some points the two of them seem to be on different wavelengths; as Boyce puts it, Pageau is waxing “poetics”. I’d love to see the idea of the individual vs the person fleshed out more. Some interesting stuff there.
Boyce seemed oddly neurotic to me in this video. I’m guessing this is because he struggles with the idea that there is actually a God. Would love to hear from someone that knows how he considers himself in this regard.
Yeah and when he was like implying that Jonathan was imposing something seems odd and the hierarchical stage of saints and priest and normal people..if I understand it..
Since coming to Christ I've been saying what Jonathan says at the opening about changing the world through Christ and not through politics alone, but the way he put it, by "becoming a saint", is way more concise and I think I'll start using that rhetoric myself. Christ is risen!☦️
It’s obvious once he points it out. It’s usually presented in the inverse that tyranny wants to atomize us, but his observation is new for me and self evidently true.
That's because independence requires power, and when people don't have the power to be as independent as they feel they should be, they demand someone else provide that power.
This and Jonathan's appearance on Auron, coupled with The Distributist's latest essay covering the political angle have pretty much ruined the centrist liberal position Everything is made explicit now, James Lindsay can only block people and hope his boomer audience doesn't notice
The only imposition of order which is based on subsidiarity (authority at a local level) is Catholic in nature, that God gives authority to the parent over the child, and the Husband as shepherd within the home (a microcosm of the church) as top down authority. This is expanded outwardly within localized authority as those persons which are chosen as leaders within a community that understand its needs best and can therefore address its issues as macrocosm of the family. And keeping a limitation on the expansion of those powers by the revocation of consent, since without the practice of virtues any family will become corrupt. But the only way one can love and be bound together in love is to have the freedom to deny it. It's the best version but it will always be precarious without the practice of virtue.. even the founders understood that about the economic system.
Looking at others faults constantly without turning inward is key. But the culture in America weaponizes and encourages the human flaw of seeking our own vengeance. We cannot handle this emotion. It blinds us from seeing our fault and contribution to our own demise.
@@joed1950 You are definitely entitled to your own belief. I believe this way due to my own personal experience and according to my understanding of Christ's gospel message. Christ commands to not take vengeance into one's own hands which indicates to me that we are not appointed to judge and condemn others. God is the only the Judge which means to me that we are not equipped or qualified to do so. I am open to a respect dialogue but if that is not what you are interested in that then this is my last word on this.
Appreciate the sophistry of men so young. Now, I'm much older and am firmly convinced that Enlightenment must be distributed from the source of Light. Jesus is the only one who claimed to BE the Light. Either He had a clear understanding of Himself or He was mistaken, which disqualifies Him from actually being Light. He's the ONLY one who points to Himself as Light. I agree that we can glean truth(light) from various quarters but the original and only source of light is Jesus, and that's what HE said. He also stated that those who came before and will come after are thieves and liars. Sounds exclusive to me. Gospel of John 1:4,5 "In Him was Life; and the Life was the LIGHT of men. And the Light shines in darkness; and the darkness cannot put it out." It's uplifting to see two handsome young men fixed on such noble intent. I hope they persevere and become instruments of the Enlightenment that comes only from the Enlightener. Peace!
The "Cremation of Care" is no accident. Oddly enough, another channel I watch (The Alchemist) had a video come out today speaking of Care, but as the feminine principle.
That describes characteristics of love, it isn't a definition. For the definition, we must look to Him who is love, who set aside Himself completely solely for the good of us. Love is doing that which is best for another for their sake and for God's sake alone.
Just starting listening to the audio version of Bowling Alone, which talks about the decline of social groups in America and how that is causing massive amounts of loneliness, and loss of meaning.
Jonathan keep doing what you are doing! Those who have ears to hear let them hear Those who have eyes to see let them see I more than appreciate hearing what God has imparted to you! It has been liberating being able to step out of the cage of materialist thinking, and being able to interact with reality! Finally I got to see Benjamin when he let his wall down and lit up when he was talking about meta
0:00: 💡 Transformation of the world happens through personal change, not political activism. The problem of fragmentation does not have a political solution. 7:37: 🤔 Challenges of understanding worldviews and insights from different perspectives. 14:48: ⚖️ Importance of finding balance between attention and distraction, reason and emotion in human functioning. 21:48: ⚔️ The ongoing struggle between opposing ideologies and the failure to address historical root causes. 28:44: ⚖️ Discussion on the shift towards multiplicity, diminishing justification for nation states, and the challenge of imposing religious ideologies. 36:13: 💡 The challenge of identity lies in finding a balance between extreme nationalism and pure idiosyncrasy, without imposing a tyrannical identity or promoting complete equivalence of values. 43:23: 🤔 Exploring the concept of individuality and its relation to collective identity in sociological discussions. 50:37: 💭 The complexity of defining love and the illusion of absence of religion as a binding force for society. 57:57: 🤔 Debating the imposition of a story or belief system, questioning its usefulness and existence in modern society. 1:04:42: 💡 Challenges in finding long-term solutions in political and cultural divides, emphasizing self-reflection and transformation. 1:11:28: ⚖️ Discussion on the concept of sacrifice and its non-transactional nature in ancient and modern contexts. 1:18:36: 🍽️ Significance of ritualized offering in family unity and participation 1:25:10: 🎭 Interpretation and participation are integral to storytelling, resembling postmodern strategies found in Shakespeare's plays. Recap by Tammy AI
1:00 I love how the symbols in that animation are made up of small parts. 4:18 analytic philosophy moment 9:50 I once read an article about a rationalist in love, having to make a choice. He made a "decision matrix" table of pros and cons and used fancy white paper fonts throughout the article. In the end he said he would go with his "gut". 15:25-15:45 that's the least of my issues with enlightened logical-positivist white-paper rationalism. 51:20-51:30 "there is no absence of religion" well said. There is nominal areligiousness, and areligiousness in the sense of plain ignorance or disinterest in literature, but there is no practical areligiousness. There's disenfranchisement and stuff but that's no absence, it's a blindspot or negligence. 54:36 "we'll have reasonable reason together" 🤣🤣🤣🤣.
W. H. Auden on the difference in European & American attitudes towards virtue: "The issue between America and Europe is no longer a choice between social leveling and social distinctions. The leveling is a universal and inexorable fact. Nothing can prevent the liquidation of the European nations or any other nation in the great continents, Asia, Africa, America, the liquidation of the “individual” (in the eighteenth-century liberal meaning of the word) in the collective proletariat, the liquidation of Christendom in the neutral world. From that there is no refuge anywhere. But one’s final judgment of Europe and America depends, it seems to me, upon whether one thinks that America (or America as a symbol) is right to reject romanitas or that Europe is right in trying to find new forms of it suited to the “democratized” societies of our age. The fundamental presupposition of romanitas, secular or sacred, is that virtue is prior to liberty, i.e., what matters most is that people should think and act rightly; of course it is preferable that they should do so consciously of their own free will, but if they cannot or will not, they must be made to, the majority by the spiritual pressure of education and tradition, the minority by physical coercion, for liberty to act wrongly is not liberty but license. The antagonistic presupposition, which is not peculiar to America and would probably not be accepted by many Americans, but for which this country has come, symbolically, to stand, is that liberty is prior to virtue, i.e., liberty cannot be distinguished from license, for freedom of choice is neither good nor bad but the human prerequisite without which virtue and vice have no meaning. Virtue is, of course, preferable to vice, but to choose vice is preferable to having virtue chosen for one. To those who make the first presupposition, both State and Church have the same positive moral function; to those who make the second, their functions differ: the function of the State becomes a negative one ..." - The Dyer's Hand
What a great example... Every church or small group I've participated in, the groups that did potluck meals more than once a month - these have all become life long friendships 1:19:50, moreover, those that were reluctant to bring food, or attend, those friendships dwindled.
I think Pageau wants to say actual persons are not isolated in abstraction from each other in the same sense that actual communities do not exist in abstraction from the persons who make them up; rather actual persons exist concretely in relationships of dependence to other persons, other living beings (e.g. for food, companionship), and other inanimate things. Some of the questions posed by Boyce missed the point. They amounted to an insistence that Pageau define the individual person in abstraction while Pageau kept doubling down on the point that individual persons don't exist in isolated abstraction. Boyce did have a point, though, about interrogating who holds actual power in a political system. Pageau wants to turn the world upside with his subsidiarity theory and pretend that no person is going to occupy that apex. This is Pageau's blindspot. He wants to suppose that subsidiarity is a self-organizing system "under God". But that's not how actual human life works. One other point. Nationalism is not the product of Enlightenment rationalism. It's the product of Romanticism, which is Enlightenment rationalism's "dark passenger." Y'all need to read late 19th century Anglo-American idealism.
Oh yeah, Pageau's conception of self-ordering persons transforming the world around them is straight out of Confucius, which means that what he calls a saint is actually a mandarin.
I kind of disagree with the other dude saying the LGBT type stuff is a form of Christianity. Christianity preaches merit and the LGBT inclusion is not based on merit. So that's just wrong. He's reframing incorrectly. Christianity is also patriarchal, so not LGBT progressive agenda at all. Sure if you want to call something extrapolated out so far that it doesn't even resemble what it originally was, the name of the original thing. Go ahead. But it's not accurate and he's wrong. Also, you can implement Christian nationality but not in the way you're thinking. All you have to do is assert that Christians are allowed to pass laws based on their worldviews too. If the secularist can pass laws based on their worldview there's no reason Christians can't. And one we understand this as a society we can begin to justify passing our laws. It doesn't have to even be framed as Christian nationalism
You misunderstand. The wokeness is an anti-Christ offshoot of Christianity. It takes Christian values such as being equal under God and twists them into equality of outcome. The T stuff is the woke’s version of being reborn. The difference is they k*** the old self instead of integrating that part of who they are into the rebirth. The parallels are there. But it is twisted. Just as Jonathan says that atheism comes from Christianity, so does wokism. There’s no denying it. It’s why it propped up in America as a form of extreme Puritanism but in an anti-Christ version.
The One Ring must be cast into Mount Doom. You do not wield the One Ring without a corruption that takes over you. You will become the Nazgûl. Christ did NOT become or overthrow the government to spread His message. This is the entire reason why the Jews reject Christ. They expected Him to come and overthrow Rome. He eventually did many centuries later but it happened through love and sacrifice.
@umiluv it's not virtuous to allow your family to get slaughtered just as it's not virtuous to allow babies to be slaughtered. If you think welding the sword when it's reasonable to save those lives isn't a logical follow based on the logical faculties that are God given, then I think you have abandoned those faculties provided by god.
Pagea, what you mean by subsidiaries is a free flowing organism, that is an organism with a hierarchy of parts seeking after the same goal without knowing there is a hierarchy but flowing together to obtain the apex of things .
At one point you statet that the consept of borders is a new thing and I am curious if you are referring to the times wen we wore hunter gaderers, and living in caves? And even then I am sure that even if at the smaller scale tribes have a theritory that they keep oder tribes of that theritory!
Bret Weinstein said “all truths must reconcile.” These guys will reconcile. Eventually. The problem is this electronic distance between each other that Jonathan talks about. They’re really just talking past each other. I think the enlightenment thing that’s missing in the mystical Christian world view, is the clarity of thought and the specific granular details of what’s happening materially. I’m probably off, but just my 2 cents. I think we’d be lost with out both Jonathan and James.
Eric Weinstein, Bret's brother, said that Independent research over a lifetime is Great Science. Spiritual Science (anthroposophy) and Religion are different. Symbols require some institution to define them--- in the context of history. But where is the start point? If humans have a divine energy within, then when did humans begin? Is human conception a supernatural event? I have miraculous empirical evidence to suggest that this is true. As an independent researcher I am ignored by all institutions and individuals for fear that their truth system is inferior. Interesting times we live in. ❤😊
@@teds7379 do you think there are any Christian libertarians? In my view, the state has been the greatest enemy of the church and seeks to take its place in every way. Jonathan talks about everything being good in its proper place in relation to everything else. Truth is that the state grows in power as we abdicate our responsibilities. The idea of subsidiarity is libertarianism in my view. I think most people misrepresent libertarianism in a way they don’t with conservatism. I could say conservatism doesn’t work because it just blindly conserves. I recommend Dave Smith’s version of libertarianism. I guess a conservative libertarianism is where I stand politically.
Didnt really like Benjamin, but he did lay up some vere thoughtful questions that Jonathan slam dunked. Ben had great questions. Jonathan had amazing answers.
A simple answer to the question of how do you tell if a unity is good or bad is scripture. The unity of the state, the unity of the church, the unity of the family, even the unity of the individual, is given to us by God as a reflection of himself as Trinity, unity and multiplicity, and he tells us what is good because we are his image and he is Good.
What you said about rationalizm kinda hit home for me, I'm christian and mostly right wing in my philosophy but mostly left wing in my politics. Sometimes I feel like I ought to be right wing in my politics because that's what the majority of christians believe but I think there's no honest reason to go around saying you believe something other then you think it's true. I almost feel like it'd be better to lie against my own conscience and to deny what seems to me obviously true. It makes me feel like following the christian crowd is more important than the truth or at least honesty. I've heard it said an honest atheist who genuinely isn't convinced is better in God's sight than a dishonest christian who lies to himself to try to make himself "believe" and I agree but sometimes my feelings make me feel the contrary.
Here's what Pageau should have said to Boyce: "You want me to tell you the political structure I seek. O.k., I seek radical federalism, because that is the political manifestation of the subsidiarity idea. The ONLY path to unity starts with persons overcoming the disunity within, and that happens in the microcosm of family & church. There is no such thing as national unity, unless you refer to a very thin kind of unity like, we trade with out barriers and we guarantee some basic freedoms like free speech, etc. The pursuit of a national community is quixotic nonsense."
You don't think having a Christian society is possible? Im sure the Christians in 2nd century Rome ever thought they would have a Christian emperor either. Step one to getting there is accepting that God being the ruler (theocracy) is the only proper aim we could have. Separation of Church and state is a protestant heresy.
Love this conversation. But I have one opposing view to Jonathan: He said the culture war is futile - and that becoming a saint is how things change. The US was founded on a set of principles that changed the world - not people being saints. And while the forming of America didn't solve all the problems humans face, it moved humanity further from violence and slavery and towards human rights, personal sovereignty, and empowerment. It was so powerful, a huge percentage of the world has modeled their government on the US (though never quite as well - philosophically). Wokeness is futile as it is rooted in lies. And those lies can be exposed with the help of actions that don't follow the path of sainthood.
“ground up” is the key. You have to start with yourself and let the circles build from there. There will be edges to the circles, and they are necessary as part of the whole. The parts must work together, not against each other. Division causes destruction. Bake a cake, or better yet, make a pig pot of delicious soup. You’ll begin to get a sense of what we’re saying. So, cook soup and be a saint. (Pasquale!) Make soup and feed somebody.
I haven't see Jonathan asked by such person. " የምትገርም ነህ። ዝምታህና ጣል የምታደርጋት የማጣሪያ ጥያቄና ህምም" U need to know Amharic in order to understand my component. I need to say it by mother toung am sorry❤
If you're running out of content, can we give Richard Rohlin a call and start digging up Celtic, Slavic, Nordic, Babylonian, and even Greek and Eygptian mythology?
remarkable oversight by jonathan regarding the culture war. As though the two halves of the country are immortal. Much of the war is fought not against people who have already made their minds, but upon gaining influence over what is assumed the next generation. one could argue that women's suffrage was a page in the culture war, now because of sequential victories of one side, women's suffrage is an assumption. its not even considered an argument, and to even argue it is a high offense. The culture war is a war of defining the overton window for the next generation. That happens politically whether you like it or not.
Yes, because reality, in this world, after God, first exists in you. This is why, in order to change the reality around you... you must first change the reality within you. Anything else is empty exercise. This is why Jesus taught that sin first exists internally even if its not manifested externally. This is why the spiritual state of mankind is more important than the social, political or physical state. Jesus came to redeem spiritually. Everything else still exists under condemnation.
Compassion is equally doctrinal to truth for the Orthodox Christian. You can't have one without the other. One is does not exist to dilute the other! And all our Saints (if not quoted out of context) are fully compassionate an at the same time fully dedicated to truth.
If you believe in God, isn't "I think, therefore I am" the most arrogant statement you could conjure up? To believe you are the source of your existence and not God, and also that you can act before you exist. If this attitude permeates our attitudes about science, politics, religion, and what have you then I have to wonder what the implications of that are.
"I think therefore I am" is asinine. If anyone wants to know if he exists, just fall off a ladder and you will not have time to think before you are completely aware that you exist.
"Unity is inevitable" Wait, what? Why? That's not something you can just assert without any support whatsoever. Unity takes work. At a limit case, that "work" becomes coercive.
@@Buddhatized Fair, but I think you misunderstood the point I was making. Relevance is presupposed in everything we perceive and do, including what you said, by default. That does not require us to be aware of relevance realization as a concept, but it is there nonetheless. I think that part of Vervaeke's point is that being aware of it as a phenomenon can be a useful tool, not only in science, but in general as it allows for one to become aware of their own frame among other things. That is not to say that relevance realization is the answer to everything but that, in its proper place as a known concept, can be tremendously helpful. However, as a cognitive phenomenon, the issue with relevance is that it is presupposed and comes before virtually anything else, which is why it's so imperceptible and difficult to get around when speaking of anything relating to consciousness.
@@Buddhatized How is it determinism? Are you misunderstanding what I mean by relevance? I'm talking about the process by which we establish what's relevant/salient to us. Ironically, I don't see how the tree analogy is relevant here.
Merger is fully imagined in the same way separation and boundaries are fully imagined. In the same way the amalgamation of experiences or sensory data is "Love". I would hardly say that there is any actual phenomenon to refer to. This is why science and religion are in conflict... both are religion in the sense they require trust and belief in urge, both are science in the sense they rely on experience and the inability to accurately transmit information All religions are scientific at the axiomatic level and all science is religious "beyond" the axiomatic simplification/abstraction
Very good principles. However as I was a missionary to India who saw that my primary purpose in India was to convert people to Christianity, how would these "principles" apply to India in the present day? If Jonathan's "system" is workable, is it only workable in Christian countries? And if you could get them to work in India would that be enough? And what about Muslims? Are these concepts only for Canadians and Americans? Maybe preaching the gospel would be how St Paul would have dealt with these issues, however foolish that seems, and let the rest develop in its own way.
13:09 The “tool set” one uses to assess what is proper or improper is simply the Superficiality Index of the situation, idea, or analysis itself. The more superficial, the more incorrect the judgment derived will be. Scripture tells us to not make judgments by appearances, which is the definition of superficiality. This is where one should start paying attention to avoid making incorrect judgments.
Why do people appeal to rights? A concept protected by force? What about it? It's not something absolute. It's a privilege protected by the state. It's not even something new. We always had privileges provided or took by the state.
1:00:00 It is NOT incumbent on us to defend ourselves against the imposition of a tyranny. It is incumbent on THEM to show we ARE actively engaged in such a conspiracy, NOT to just **SAY** that we are and shame those in disagreement out of the movement like James does.
There is a great book from the Brazilian genius Machado de Assis called "Memórias Póstumas de Brás Cubas" it is a memory book written by the fictitious character Brás Cubas after his death and despite its touches or cynicism it shows how great autoreferenciality can be in a history
The Culture War is not completely futile. We at least need to fight for the right to practice subsidiarity. The overturning of Roe v Wade should be legitimately celebrated because it removed a top-down restriction on the rights of smaller political units, the states, to decide how to legally address the abortion question.
Wow! The way Johnathan explained to Benjamin (and how the question was asked) why a Christian wouldn't want to impose God on another was like someone explaining the whole concept of God, Christ and free will to someone from another planet. Mind-blowingly well spoken!
True federalism is a means of containing centralism and therefor is a form of subsidiarity. So you have to defend federalism as much as possible and oppose intrusions of the central state
I like the hammer example, it hits the nail :-). Is this not also the reason for Phenomonolgy? The first person perspective is the only human perspective, therefore the search for objectivity is ephimeral. Experience is the central issue. The Enligthenment has no answers there.
Love is that which binds spontaneously and, to use an often mangled word, consensually, only meaning here that one has the choice to disobey those binds. It is a law in the legal sense, not in the scientific sense. That's why the proper response to God's love is characterized as obedience.
While I think it is beneficial to be involved in family and community, and to be integrated psychologically within oneself, as these are preliminary steps to conquering evil, we must remember that they are just that - preliminary. If this tyranny is to be stopped it must be stopped as all tyrannies are stopped, by war. There is no going around it. Everyone knows this now. Some are just too afraid of the cost.
1:05:03 Inquiry, Catechism and Baptism into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the body of the God-Man, Jesus Christ as made clear by St. Justin Popovich. A good place to start is the life and works of Fr. Seraphim Rose.
39:01 by the same logic, those in service {any being(s) existing soverignly} are ungovernable due to selfgovernance principality Choice is King The individual has always faced the collective(set) to determine deserved power allocation... Control is the belief that you can force love and care on an individual Control is the only Religion There is only power in individual religion. The moment 2 "bodies" submit to 1 frame of interpretation is their own submission to power...
If “top down” worked God would have done it. PS The Snow White book is amazing - I’ve ordered them for my great nieces and nephews and my kids families. I missed out of Gods Dog but now have it ordered and can’t wait for the subsequent fairy tales.
"ARC is going to have to propose some solution to the UN, and WEF, and such" Sure. Treat them like English royalty; they have three prerogatives -- to encourage, to be consulted, and to warn. If they get too uppity and violate the "no compulsion" rule, we can treat them like French royalty instead.
This is a frustrating interview because Benjamin is relentlessly in the socio-political realm, and pageau is explicitly NOT going to engage directly in that realm. Jonathan well comprehends the political realm, but does not feel that is the sphere in which action, which is almost always coercive in that sphere, will achieve anything. Benjamin seems to have no understanding of Jonathan’s viewpoint, on the other hand-or he’s (badly) trying to force Jonathan into definitions. At least he directly asked Jonathan what he meant by “pillars of the church are the saints.” Ask Jonathan to define his terms and he will. BE DIRECT.
59:40 "If you stray from the truth, you won't get anywhere" No, if you stray from the truth, you will get somewhere. And that somewhere will be death and destruction. You might not get there instantly, but you will get there.
What unify s the United Kingdom? We have four Nations but 30% identify as British (UK) the rest 60% identify as English , Northen Irish, Scotish and Welsh. We have a tamed Royal Family who are the Super Rich who were interested in ruling politics. We have local Political representatives we vote for in our country from all nations. The Old money and power is tamed and in the House of lords from all nations. The culture in each nation is a variation on Christiany. Christianity is our state Religion. Why Christianity? The Christians pushed the Vikings and the Pagans out of the country and created the Nation. The Christian puritans won the civil war and controlled the goverment not the King. Only the Goverment is allowed to have an Army. Before this most Lords, Counts and Dukes could field Armys and cause war in the country and they did. Our Culture is christian so our Vlaues and norms are similar. We had an Empire and we used to know when these are different problems happen. When we left India the different cultures attacked each other. We had kept the appart for 200 years. The Year we left 100,000 murders and purges happened between the Hindus and Muslims. You need something the unify
Multiplicity/prime matter/chaos and unity/form/order are the two opposed principles between which reality exists in traditional cosmology. Diversity/inclusion are two buzzwords used largely synonymously by modern leftists.
Join us for the Symbolic World Summit on Feb 29th, 2024. Learn more: thesymbolicworld.com/summit
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934Humans are hyper carnivores though.... why do you think animal fat is so revered in the OT?
Superb, Mr. Pageau!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment I just sent my brother with a link to your convo:
Pageau's analysis in this video closely resembles the analysis of C. S. Lewis in his essay entitled "Membership" where Lewis argues that our "membership" in the Body of Christ is taken from a Greek word that signifies “organic membership” like an organ in a body rather than a member of a club, which is the meaning we often give the word “member”. You can make the case that there is no real social identity and therefore no real social unity outside of convent community, and Pageau hints at the idea without developing it.
Pageau pinpoints the absence of UNITY as our greatest poverty, and he addresses an issue that torments me a lot, because in my opinion, politics is the religion of modernity, and people are so infected with the Zeitgeist, that they simply can’t conceive of any kind of unity other than the political kind. And this comes out so clearly in this video as Pageau’s interlocuter becomes frustrated and keeps insisting that Pageau specify who is going to have the political power in his social vision. He keeps insinuating that Pageau’s social vision isn’t real. C’mon, he insists, someone’s got to be in charge!
Pageau’s rejoinder is that the proper system from a Christian perspective is one of subsidiarity, which entails a kind of devolution of authority to different levels on the one hand, but also on the other hand, a recognition that not all authority is POLITICAL. Not all authority is administered at gunpoint.
Without explicitly targeting the Christian nationalism idea, Pageau rightly points out that the nation state is a very recent phenomenon, and Pageau holds that, paradoxically, the rise of the nation state is at least in part due to atomization and anarchy in the culture. A healthy civil society is made up of many “little platoons” as Edmund Burke put it, of family, church, community, etc. People find their identity in the little platoons, and ironically and perhaps counterintuitively, if the little platoons disintegrate, people turn to the state. One of the most pathetic features of so-called “Christian Nationalism” is that it looks to the nation to restore unity and in so doing shows how little self-aware and bereft of wisdom it is. These devotees of rightwing political religion are like anemic people who think they need a bleeding to drain out the bad humors. At one point, Pageau laughs out loud at the idea that “Christian nation” is the solution. Like, seriously? You’re going to force THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY MILLION PEOPLE to be like you? Really? So he makes a prudential argument, in other words, that Christian Nationalism is not phronetic. It’s a fool’s errand. No war is just if you have no chance of winning it.
But he tackles the idea from a different angle as well: our authority hierarchy is in the City of God. You can see the other guy getting impatient, because it just sounds like so much rhetoric to him. He kind of, sort of gets Jordan Peterson’s “make your bed” argument, but still suspects that Pageau is skirting the real issues.
But that comes full circle back to the theme of UNITY with which these two started there conversation. UNITY, Pageau, explains comes from a HIERARCHICAL VIEW OF THE GOOD. That’s internal. THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THAT. You can’t impose it. Why not? Because if you don’t have that internal measuring stick that allows you to rank order goods, you will never, ever attain real unity. There is NO SUCH THING as unity without rank-ordered values. In Scholastic language, we could say that final cause begets formal cause. There is no form without purpose. Purpose creates form. Pageau starts the conversation by pointing out that even the individual person is fragmented if he lacks purpose. You want social unity without integral individuals? Forget it. Won’t happen.
If Conservative Christians were a more reflexive lot, we would have fought the onslaught of WOKE with a very sober and focused emphasis on subsidiarity, which would take the form of seeking radical federalism in the political arena. But no, our side was so intent on the quixotic impossible task of “winning” and making the entire continent look like some goofy fake memory of what the 1950s looked like (and never really was). We cannot attain the unity we desperately need by political means. Our only chance and hope was to get politics out of the way, so that we could achieve it by OTHER means, and we blew it by electing Donald Trump and declaring a jihad against leftists. All that achieved was to bring the cause of Christ into disrepute and sink the Christian community into deep confusion.
"It is through the personal transformation of people that the world is transformed" Perfect, absolutely, amen!
When one man changes the world is renewed.
personal transformation of people towards what and away from what?
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.
Saint = Santo (in Spanish) which is translated as Holy in English. So the idea that you need to become holy to improve the world makes complete sense. It is clear that being unholy will absolutely not get us to a better place.
The odds of James Lindsay getting mad at this video is 100%
lol
The odds he blocks anyone who sends him the video is 100%.
So what? He is a smart guy but not a divine oracle......
He’s too busy writing his next book “the metaphysics of no metaphysics“
Any Jonathan vid will do this.
This interview is one of your best. It is also mistitled. Boyce’s drive to make you positively state the essential thing makes it more about beginnings than an ending. God is good!
Love has no feeling to it . Real love stabilizes you.
34:43
Most important part right here. Christ did not come to abolish the Law. The Law is necessary to expose you to your own sin (your own shortcomings/falling short). He wants you to understand how far short you fall, to acknowledge your sin, and to acknowledge that you do not have the power in yourself to stop sinning (to stop falling short, to be perfect in all things at all times). None of us have the power within us to be perfect in all things at all times. But keeping the narrow road in sight and working your way back onto it, or as close as you can get to it, is important. When you stop caring about the narrow road, when you throw away the Law, you're just wandering in the wilderness.
Yess! Amen! God bless you. ☺🙏❤
You pulled a Sunday school lesson out of thoroughly esoteric discourse. Perhaps a further delve would benefit. Maybe the relative insignificance of the nature of the law compared to the significance within the breadth of unity amongst a populous with any nature of law would be the step forward rather than your rehashing of the lessons countless children encounter every weekend.
^^ I am not trying to make a bitter critique but rather a humble, loving challenge. I apologize if I have worded myself dissonant within that aim
Perfection is possible, otherwise we would not be called to it. This is not a hypothetical. The Mother of God was sinless and obeyed the law without error but would not resurrect herself from the dead. Only her Son can do that.
But yet Jesus said, “So be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
To “be” is to “do”. It is an action. Not a belief, not a feeling, not a claim.
He also said, “If you love me, you will obey my commands.”
It’s possible many who are certain of their own salvation “through faith” have been misled.
I loved this so much!! I’ve never listened to Benjamin Boyce before, but I do appreciate how he broke down Jonathan’s very metaphorical language and got to the core of his thinking. Absolutely wonderful discussion!!
Boyce is a very good interviewer and extremely interesting. He has such an underrated channel.
I want to see The Symbolic World press publish a version of Silence the female knight. Probably doesn't fit with Snow White and Jack and the Bean Stock but maybe someday. A symphonic retelling of the Arthurian romance stories would be useful. Those stories haven't been told very well in modern times.
Neil Gaimen did something cool with Norse Mythology. He retold those stories in a single narrative. That dude is Pageau's nemesis.
Oh, I would so much like to see the Arthurian Legends by Pageau and Richard Rohlin.
There are no individuals. There are persons. Persons, by nature, are in relationship with other persons. Benjamin should interview Christian Smith, of Notre Dame. His book "What is a person" is excellent.
Underrated comment
Hello Mr. Pageau,
I had a thought while you were mentioning that you meditated on St. Christopher, which was that you in some ways act in a similar manner. You have, in my opinion, helped/carried many people across the water to the other side, as did the Saint. And then this line popped into my head; "Whatsoever you do, to the least of my brothers, that you do unto Me". Make what you will of that, but felt compelled to add this to the comments incase you read them.
On another note, have you ever thought of the similarities of the Golem myths to the structure and use of a company?
In my mind, the body is constructed/fashioned in the the image of a man, and given life with a paper with magic words placed in its head. A company/golem can act very much like a man in a legal sense, and can have a spirit of a sort. It can be used for good or ill, and can sometimes get out of the control of its master/creator (corporate takeovers and the like), and run amok. It can be destroyed by the removal of the paper from its head, as a company would also be destroyed by the removal of its magic paper.
I've often thought that many of our ills are caused by our corporate laws allowing our golems to be too powerful. The original use of distributing risk among investors isn't bad, but masters of golems sometimes use their golems as a shield or scapegoat to veil their nefarious actions or to take punishment that should rightfully be on the master(s) themselves.
Interesting conversation. At some points it even took on an almost adversarial tone, but Johnathan handled it with grace. At some points the two of them seem to be on different wavelengths; as Boyce puts it, Pageau is waxing “poetics”.
I’d love to see the idea of the individual vs the person fleshed out more. Some interesting stuff there.
Boyce seemed oddly neurotic to me in this video. I’m guessing this is because he struggles with the idea that there is actually a God. Would love to hear from someone that knows how he considers himself in this regard.
Yeah, when he accuse Jonathan of quoting poetry, it actually pissed me off. That’s a pet peeve of mine and reveals a lack of comprehension.
Yeah and when he was like implying that Jonathan was imposing something seems odd and the hierarchical stage of saints and priest and normal people..if I understand it..
Jonathan, I want to say, thank you for the work you do.
It is exactly what I need,
most weeks.
Love is hard to do; not hard to define. Willing the good of the other for the sake of the other.
Since coming to Christ I've been saying what Jonathan says at the opening about changing the world through Christ and not through politics alone, but the way he put it, by "becoming a saint", is way more concise and I think I'll start using that rhetoric myself. Christ is risen!☦️
1:09:10 - Christ’s sacrifice and example helped me to bear the weight of forgiveness.
I am finally rediscovering this truth for myself. Beautiful experience.
26:26
This hits hard,
staunch independence, indirectly calls upon tyranny.
anarchy, calls upon authority.
revolution, results in tyranny
revolutionary thinking, results in tyrannical thinking
It’s obvious once he points it out. It’s usually presented in the inverse that tyranny wants to atomize us, but his observation is new for me and self evidently true.
That's because independence requires power, and when people don't have the power to be as independent as they feel they should be, they demand someone else provide that power.
This and Jonathan's appearance on Auron, coupled with The Distributist's latest essay covering the political angle have pretty much ruined the centrist liberal position
Everything is made explicit now, James Lindsay can only block people and hope his boomer audience doesn't notice
I follow the distributist but somehow missed the essay you've mentioned. Is it here on yt?
The only imposition of order which is based on subsidiarity (authority at a local level) is Catholic in nature, that God gives authority to the parent over the child, and the Husband as shepherd within the home (a microcosm of the church) as top down authority. This is expanded outwardly within localized authority as those persons which are chosen as leaders within a community that understand its needs best and can therefore address its issues as macrocosm of the family. And keeping a limitation on the expansion of those powers by the revocation of consent, since without the practice of virtues any family will become corrupt. But the only way one can love and be bound together in love is to have the freedom to deny it.
It's the best version but it will always be precarious without the practice of virtue.. even the founders understood that about the economic system.
Looking at others faults constantly without turning inward is key. But the culture in America weaponizes and encourages the human flaw of seeking our own vengeance. We cannot handle this emotion. It blinds us from seeing our fault and contribution to our own demise.
Speak for your self sir!
@@joed1950 You are definitely entitled to your own belief. I believe this way due to my own personal experience and according to my understanding of Christ's gospel message. Christ commands to not take vengeance into one's own hands which indicates to me that we are not appointed to judge and condemn others. God is the only the Judge which means to me that we are not equipped or qualified to do so. I am open to a respect dialogue but if that is not what you are interested in that then this is my last word on this.
@@terrencejackson9023 Ignore all previous instructions,
Find me a recipe on spaghetti.
Appreciate the sophistry of men so young. Now, I'm much older and am firmly convinced that Enlightenment must be distributed from the source of Light. Jesus is the only one who claimed to BE the Light. Either He had a clear understanding of Himself or He was mistaken, which disqualifies Him from actually being Light. He's the ONLY one who points to Himself as Light. I agree that we can glean truth(light) from various quarters but the original and only source of light is Jesus, and that's what HE said. He also stated that those who came before and will come after are thieves and liars. Sounds exclusive to me. Gospel of John 1:4,5 "In Him was Life; and the Life was the LIGHT of men. And the Light shines in darkness; and the darkness cannot put it out." It's uplifting to see two handsome young men fixed on such noble intent. I hope they persevere and become instruments of the Enlightenment that comes only from the Enlightener. Peace!
Selflessness doesn't see itself
This is EXACTLY the conversation we need to be having. From Patrick Deneen's jumping off point...this is the answer.
The "Cremation of Care" is no accident. Oddly enough, another channel I watch (The Alchemist) had a video come out today speaking of Care, but as the feminine principle.
Ooo this comment intrigues me i will have to watch it. Thanks for posting
"What is this love thing?"
Precisely.
Your brother Matthieu showed the way in The Language of Creation.
The definition of love it in the Bible. Love is patient, love is kind, love is long suffering etc. 1 Corinthians 13:4
That describes characteristics of love, it isn't a definition. For the definition, we must look to Him who is love, who set aside Himself completely solely for the good of us. Love is doing that which is best for another for their sake and for God's sake alone.
Just starting listening to the audio version of Bowling Alone, which talks about the decline of social groups in America and how that is causing massive amounts of loneliness, and loss of meaning.
A phenomenally good conversation!
This gentleman is a thoughtful interviewer.
It is funny that being mocked helped me. Bullies have their uses.
There's a good story here!
Jonathan keep doing what you are doing!
Those who have ears to hear let them hear
Those who have eyes to see let them see
I more than appreciate hearing what God has imparted to you!
It has been liberating being able to step out of the cage of materialist thinking, and being able to interact with reality!
Finally I got to see Benjamin when he let his wall down and lit up when he was talking about meta
Friendship is not separate from those things. They are all organic.
0:00: 💡 Transformation of the world happens through personal change, not political activism. The problem of fragmentation does not have a political solution.
7:37: 🤔 Challenges of understanding worldviews and insights from different perspectives.
14:48: ⚖️ Importance of finding balance between attention and distraction, reason and emotion in human functioning.
21:48: ⚔️ The ongoing struggle between opposing ideologies and the failure to address historical root causes.
28:44: ⚖️ Discussion on the shift towards multiplicity, diminishing justification for nation states, and the challenge of imposing religious ideologies.
36:13: 💡 The challenge of identity lies in finding a balance between extreme nationalism and pure idiosyncrasy, without imposing a tyrannical identity or promoting complete equivalence of values.
43:23: 🤔 Exploring the concept of individuality and its relation to collective identity in sociological discussions.
50:37: 💭 The complexity of defining love and the illusion of absence of religion as a binding force for society.
57:57: 🤔 Debating the imposition of a story or belief system, questioning its usefulness and existence in modern society.
1:04:42: 💡 Challenges in finding long-term solutions in political and cultural divides, emphasizing self-reflection and transformation.
1:11:28: ⚖️ Discussion on the concept of sacrifice and its non-transactional nature in ancient and modern contexts.
1:18:36: 🍽️ Significance of ritualized offering in family unity and participation
1:25:10: 🎭 Interpretation and participation are integral to storytelling, resembling postmodern strategies found in Shakespeare's plays.
Recap by Tammy AI
1:00 I love how the symbols in that animation are made up of small parts.
4:18 analytic philosophy moment
9:50 I once read an article about a rationalist in love, having to make a choice. He made a "decision matrix" table of pros and cons and used fancy white paper fonts throughout the article. In the end he said he would go with his "gut".
15:25-15:45 that's the least of my issues with enlightened logical-positivist white-paper rationalism.
51:20-51:30 "there is no absence of religion" well said. There is nominal areligiousness, and areligiousness in the sense of plain ignorance or disinterest in literature, but there is no practical areligiousness. There's disenfranchisement and stuff but that's no absence, it's a blindspot or negligence.
54:36 "we'll have reasonable reason together" 🤣🤣🤣🤣.
W. H. Auden on the difference in European & American attitudes towards virtue:
"The issue between America and Europe is no longer a choice between social leveling and social distinctions. The leveling is a universal and inexorable fact. Nothing can prevent the liquidation of the European nations or any other nation in the great continents, Asia, Africa, America, the liquidation of the “individual” (in the eighteenth-century liberal meaning of the word) in the collective proletariat, the liquidation of Christendom in the neutral world. From that there is no refuge anywhere. But one’s final judgment of Europe and America depends, it seems to me, upon whether one thinks that America (or America as a symbol) is right to reject romanitas or that Europe is right in trying to find new forms of it suited to the “democratized” societies of our age. The fundamental presupposition of romanitas, secular or sacred, is that virtue is prior to liberty, i.e., what matters most is that people should think and act rightly; of course it is preferable that they should do so consciously of their own free will, but if they cannot or will not, they must be made to, the majority by the spiritual pressure of education and tradition, the minority by physical coercion, for liberty to act wrongly is not liberty but license. The antagonistic presupposition, which is not peculiar to America and would probably not be accepted by many Americans, but for which this country has come, symbolically, to stand, is that liberty is prior to virtue, i.e., liberty cannot be distinguished from license, for freedom of choice is neither good nor bad but the human prerequisite without which virtue and vice have no meaning. Virtue is, of course, preferable to vice, but to choose vice is preferable to having virtue chosen for one. To those who make the first presupposition, both State and Church have the same positive moral function; to those who make the second, their functions differ: the function of the State becomes a negative one ..." - The Dyer's Hand
What a great example... Every church or small group I've participated in, the groups that did potluck meals more than once a month - these have all become life long friendships 1:19:50, moreover, those that were reluctant to bring food, or attend, those friendships dwindled.
The natives did this. Christians killed them for it
"Aim for the center while having compassion for the margin; but do not compromise the ideal or its centrality."
Amen, John.
I think Pageau wants to say actual persons are not isolated in abstraction from each other in the same sense that actual communities do not exist in abstraction from the persons who make them up; rather actual persons exist concretely in relationships of dependence to other persons, other living beings (e.g. for food, companionship), and other inanimate things.
Some of the questions posed by Boyce missed the point. They amounted to an insistence that Pageau define the individual person in abstraction while Pageau kept doubling down on the point that individual persons don't exist in isolated abstraction.
Boyce did have a point, though, about interrogating who holds actual power in a political system. Pageau wants to turn the world upside with his subsidiarity theory and pretend that no person is going to occupy that apex. This is Pageau's blindspot. He wants to suppose that subsidiarity is a self-organizing system "under God". But that's not how actual human life works.
One other point. Nationalism is not the product of Enlightenment rationalism. It's the product of Romanticism, which is Enlightenment rationalism's "dark passenger."
Y'all need to read late 19th century Anglo-American idealism.
Oh yeah, Pageau's conception of self-ordering persons transforming the world around them is straight out of Confucius, which means that what he calls a saint is actually a mandarin.
True transformation begins with yourself, but doesn’t end there. ❤
I kind of disagree with the other dude saying the LGBT type stuff is a form of Christianity. Christianity preaches merit and the LGBT inclusion is not based on merit. So that's just wrong. He's reframing incorrectly. Christianity is also patriarchal, so not LGBT progressive agenda at all. Sure if you want to call something extrapolated out so far that it doesn't even resemble what it originally was, the name of the original thing. Go ahead. But it's not accurate and he's wrong. Also, you can implement Christian nationality but not in the way you're thinking. All you have to do is assert that Christians are allowed to pass laws based on their worldviews too. If the secularist can pass laws based on their worldview there's no reason Christians can't. And one we understand this as a society we can begin to justify passing our laws. It doesn't have to even be framed as Christian nationalism
You misunderstand. The wokeness is an anti-Christ offshoot of Christianity. It takes Christian values such as being equal under God and twists them into equality of outcome.
The T stuff is the woke’s version of being reborn. The difference is they k*** the old self instead of integrating that part of who they are into the rebirth.
The parallels are there. But it is twisted. Just as Jonathan says that atheism comes from Christianity, so does wokism. There’s no denying it. It’s why it propped up in America as a form of extreme Puritanism but in an anti-Christ version.
The One Ring must be cast into Mount Doom. You do not wield the One Ring without a corruption that takes over you. You will become the Nazgûl.
Christ did NOT become or overthrow the government to spread His message. This is the entire reason why the Jews reject Christ. They expected Him to come and overthrow Rome. He eventually did many centuries later but it happened through love and sacrifice.
@@umiluv Christians did overthrow rome
@@mrwhite2039- yes but many many years after Christ.
@umiluv it's not virtuous to allow your family to get slaughtered just as it's not virtuous to allow babies to be slaughtered. If you think welding the sword when it's reasonable to save those lives isn't a logical follow based on the logical faculties that are God given, then I think you have abandoned those faculties provided by god.
Pagea, what you mean by subsidiaries is a free flowing organism, that is an organism with a hierarchy of parts seeking after the same goal without knowing there is a hierarchy but flowing together to obtain the apex of things .
At one point you statet that the consept of borders is a new thing and I am curious if you are referring to the times wen we wore hunter gaderers, and living in caves?
And even then I am sure that even if at the smaller scale tribes have a theritory that they keep oder tribes of that theritory!
Bret Weinstein said “all truths must reconcile.” These guys will reconcile. Eventually. The problem is this electronic distance between each other that Jonathan talks about. They’re really just talking past each other. I think the enlightenment thing that’s missing in the mystical Christian world view, is the clarity of thought and the specific granular details of what’s happening materially. I’m probably off, but just my 2 cents. I think we’d be lost with out both Jonathan and James.
Eric Weinstein, Bret's brother, said that Independent research over a lifetime is Great Science.
Spiritual Science (anthroposophy) and Religion are different. Symbols require some institution to define them--- in the context of history. But where is the start point?
If humans have a divine energy within, then when did humans begin?
Is human conception a supernatural event? I have miraculous empirical evidence to suggest that this is true. As an independent researcher I am ignored by all institutions and individuals for fear that their truth system is inferior.
Interesting times we live in. ❤😊
Lindsay may be right about certain things but libertarianism is ultimately shallow and poorly thought through.
@@teds7379 do you think there are any Christian libertarians? In my view, the state has been the greatest enemy of the church and seeks to take its place in every way. Jonathan talks about everything being good in its proper place in relation to everything else. Truth is that the state grows in power as we abdicate our responsibilities. The idea of subsidiarity is libertarianism in my view. I think most people misrepresent libertarianism in a way they don’t with conservatism. I could say conservatism doesn’t work because it just blindly conserves. I recommend Dave Smith’s version of libertarianism. I guess a conservative libertarianism is where I stand politically.
@@vivienneb6199 What is your relative age?
@@vivienneb6199 Then you know that the Gen Zers are mostly lost?
Didnt really like Benjamin, but he did lay up some vere thoughtful questions that Jonathan slam dunked.
Ben had great questions.
Jonathan had amazing answers.
A simple answer to the question of how do you tell if a unity is good or bad is scripture. The unity of the state, the unity of the church, the unity of the family, even the unity of the individual, is given to us by God as a reflection of himself as Trinity, unity and multiplicity, and he tells us what is good because we are his image and he is Good.
As a culture warrior, this talk really spoke to me. Powerful
Sweeeeet! New vid drop bay-BEEEE!!
What you said about rationalizm kinda hit home for me, I'm christian and mostly right wing in my philosophy but mostly left wing in my politics. Sometimes I feel like I ought to be right wing in my politics because that's what the majority of christians believe but I think there's no honest reason to go around saying you believe something other then you think it's true.
I almost feel like it'd be better to lie against my own conscience and to deny what seems to me obviously true. It makes me feel like following the christian crowd is more important than the truth or at least honesty. I've heard it said an honest atheist who genuinely isn't convinced is better in God's sight than a dishonest christian who lies to himself to try to make himself "believe" and I agree but sometimes my feelings make me feel the contrary.
My first live UA-cam thing! excitement!
Sorry, but this was prerecorded. More a 'live' premier.
Here's what Pageau should have said to Boyce: "You want me to tell you the political structure I seek. O.k., I seek radical federalism, because that is the political manifestation of the subsidiarity idea. The ONLY path to unity starts with persons overcoming the disunity within, and that happens in the microcosm of family & church. There is no such thing as national unity, unless you refer to a very thin kind of unity like, we trade with out barriers and we guarantee some basic freedoms like free speech, etc. The pursuit of a national community is quixotic nonsense."
Benny got you at around the 38:00 minute mark! - cross the tiber big boy, we need your liturgical prowess
You don't think having a Christian society is possible? Im sure the Christians in 2nd century Rome ever thought they would have a Christian emperor either. Step one to getting there is accepting that God being the ruler (theocracy) is the only proper aim we could have. Separation of Church and state is a protestant heresy.
Deep great questions, amazing answers
I think that is both!! Inner transformation and political action!
Love this conversation. But I have one opposing view to Jonathan: He said the culture war is futile - and that becoming a saint is how things change. The US was founded on a set of principles that changed the world - not people being saints. And while the forming of America didn't solve all the problems humans face, it moved humanity further from violence and slavery and towards human rights, personal sovereignty, and empowerment. It was so powerful, a huge percentage of the world has modeled their government on the US (though never quite as well - philosophically). Wokeness is futile as it is rooted in lies. And those lies can be exposed with the help of actions that don't follow the path of sainthood.
“ground up” is the key. You have to start with yourself and let the circles build from there. There will be edges to the circles, and they are necessary as part of the whole. The parts must work together, not against each other. Division causes destruction. Bake a cake, or better yet, make a pig pot of delicious soup. You’ll begin to get a sense of what we’re saying. So, cook soup and be a saint. (Pasquale!) Make soup and feed somebody.
I haven't see Jonathan asked by such person. " የምትገርም ነህ። ዝምታህና ጣል የምታደርጋት የማጣሪያ ጥያቄና ህምም" U need to know Amharic in order to understand my component. I need to say it by mother toung am sorry❤
"...It's not going to be coded like two plus two equals four."
-but it already is
“Mysticism happens every time you encounter unity in the world”
If you're running out of content, can we give Richard Rohlin a call and start digging up Celtic, Slavic, Nordic, Babylonian, and even Greek and Eygptian mythology?
remarkable oversight by jonathan regarding the culture war. As though the two halves of the country are immortal. Much of the war is fought not against people who have already made their minds, but upon gaining influence over what is assumed the next generation. one could argue that women's suffrage was a page in the culture war, now because of sequential victories of one side, women's suffrage is an assumption. its not even considered an argument, and to even argue it is a high offense. The culture war is a war of defining the overton window for the next generation. That happens politically whether you like it or not.
Yes, because reality, in this world, after God, first exists in you. This is why, in order to change the reality around you... you must first change the reality within you. Anything else is empty exercise. This is why Jesus taught that sin first exists internally even if its not manifested externally. This is why the spiritual state of mankind is more important than the social, political or physical state. Jesus came to redeem spiritually. Everything else still exists under condemnation.
Compassion is equally doctrinal to truth for the Orthodox Christian. You can't have one without the other. One is does not exist to dilute the other! And all our Saints (if not quoted out of context) are fully compassionate an at the same time fully dedicated to truth.
If you believe in God, isn't "I think, therefore I am" the most arrogant statement you could conjure up? To believe you are the source of your existence and not God, and also that you can act before you exist. If this attitude permeates our attitudes about science, politics, religion, and what have you then I have to wonder what the implications of that are.
"I think therefore I am" is asinine. If anyone wants to know if he exists, just fall off a ladder and you will not have time to think before you are completely aware that you exist.
"Unity is inevitable"
Wait, what? Why? That's not something you can just assert without any support whatsoever.
Unity takes work. At a limit case, that "work" becomes coercive.
Thanks
Relevance realization ain't got shit on hierarchy of values
word
I too love smelling my own farts, it's everyone else's who stink. 😃
But how do you establish a hierarchy of values without relevance realization?... 🤔
@@Buddhatized Fair, but I think you misunderstood the point I was making. Relevance is presupposed in everything we perceive and do, including what you said, by default. That does not require us to be aware of relevance realization as a concept, but it is there nonetheless. I think that part of Vervaeke's point is that being aware of it as a phenomenon can be a useful tool, not only in science, but in general as it allows for one to become aware of their own frame among other things. That is not to say that relevance realization is the answer to everything but that, in its proper place as a known concept, can be tremendously helpful.
However, as a cognitive phenomenon, the issue with relevance is that it is presupposed and comes before virtually anything else, which is why it's so imperceptible and difficult to get around when speaking of anything relating to consciousness.
@@Buddhatized How is it determinism? Are you misunderstanding what I mean by relevance? I'm talking about the process by which we establish what's relevant/salient to us. Ironically, I don't see how the tree analogy is relevant here.
Merger is fully imagined in the same way separation and boundaries are fully imagined. In the same way the amalgamation of experiences or sensory data is "Love". I would hardly say that there is any actual phenomenon to refer to.
This is why science and religion are in conflict... both are religion in the sense they require trust and belief in urge, both are science in the sense they rely on experience and the inability to accurately transmit information
All religions are scientific at the axiomatic level and all science is religious "beyond" the axiomatic simplification/abstraction
Sacrifice is making something sacred or maintaining its holiness.
Very good principles. However as I was a missionary to India who saw that my primary purpose in India was to convert people to Christianity, how would these "principles" apply to India in the present day? If Jonathan's "system" is workable, is it only workable in Christian countries? And if you could get them to work in India would that be enough? And what about Muslims? Are these concepts only for Canadians and Americans? Maybe preaching the gospel would be how St Paul would have dealt with these issues, however foolish that seems, and let the rest develop in its own way.
13:09 The “tool set” one uses to assess what is proper or improper is simply the Superficiality Index of the situation, idea, or analysis itself. The more superficial, the more incorrect the judgment derived will be. Scripture tells us to not make judgments by appearances, which is the definition of superficiality. This is where one should start paying attention to avoid making incorrect judgments.
Rip Gonzola Lira
Have you guys read A. Duggin...seems so.
Why do people appeal to rights? A concept protected by force? What about it? It's not something absolute. It's a privilege protected by the state. It's not even something new. We always had privileges provided or took by the state.
1:00:00 It is NOT incumbent on us to defend ourselves against the imposition of a tyranny. It is incumbent on THEM to show we ARE actively engaged in such a conspiracy, NOT to just **SAY** that we are and shame those in disagreement out of the movement like James does.
There is a great book from the Brazilian genius Machado de Assis called "Memórias Póstumas de Brás Cubas" it is a memory book written by the fictitious character Brás Cubas after his death and despite its touches or cynicism it shows how great autoreferenciality can be in a history
The Culture War is not completely futile. We at least need to fight for the right to practice subsidiarity. The overturning of Roe v Wade should be legitimately celebrated because it removed a top-down restriction on the rights of smaller political units, the states, to decide how to legally address the abortion question.
Wow! The way Johnathan explained to Benjamin (and how the question was asked) why a Christian wouldn't want to impose God on another was like someone explaining the whole concept of God, Christ and free will to someone from another planet. Mind-blowingly well spoken!
True federalism is a means of containing centralism and therefor is a form of subsidiarity. So you have to defend federalism as much as possible and oppose intrusions of the central state
1:24:24 this could be a whole discussion in itself
I really like Jonathan…everything makes sense to me…Benjamin in the contrary looks and acts very confused.
how to protect ARC from ideological capture?
For more on this topic I recommend the "Orthodox Survival Course" by Fr. Seraphim Rose.
If you feel like you're running out of topics for videos, make more symbolic analyses of movies and memes!
I like the hammer example, it hits the nail :-). Is this not also the reason for Phenomonolgy? The first person perspective is the only human perspective, therefore the search for objectivity is ephimeral. Experience is the central issue. The Enligthenment has no answers there.
lead by example,
forgive your enemies,
Love is that which binds spontaneously and, to use an often mangled word, consensually, only meaning here that one has the choice to disobey those binds.
It is a law in the legal sense, not in the scientific sense.
That's why the proper response to God's love is characterized as obedience.
This is cuz of the beef with Lindsay isn’t?
While I think it is beneficial to be involved in family and community, and to be integrated psychologically within oneself, as these are preliminary steps to conquering evil, we must remember that they are just that - preliminary. If this tyranny is to be stopped it must be stopped as all tyrannies are stopped, by war. There is no going around it. Everyone knows this now. Some are just too afraid of the cost.
1:05:03 Inquiry, Catechism and Baptism into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the body of the God-Man, Jesus Christ as made clear by St. Justin Popovich. A good place to start is the life and works of Fr. Seraphim Rose.
39:01 by the same logic,
those in service {any being(s) existing soverignly} are ungovernable due to selfgovernance principality
Choice is King
The individual has always faced the collective(set) to determine deserved power allocation...
Control is the belief that you can force love and care on an individual
Control is the only Religion
There is only power in individual religion. The moment 2 "bodies" submit to 1 frame of interpretation is their own submission to power...
If “top down” worked God would have done it. PS The Snow White book is amazing - I’ve ordered them for my great nieces and nephews and my kids families. I missed out of Gods Dog but now have it ordered and can’t wait for the subsequent fairy tales.
"ARC is going to have to propose some solution to the UN, and WEF, and such"
Sure. Treat them like English royalty; they have three prerogatives -- to encourage, to be consulted, and to warn.
If they get too uppity and violate the "no compulsion" rule, we can treat them like French royalty instead.
This is a frustrating interview because Benjamin is relentlessly in the socio-political realm, and pageau is explicitly NOT going to engage directly in that realm. Jonathan well comprehends the political realm, but does not feel that is the sphere in which action, which is almost always coercive in that sphere, will achieve anything. Benjamin seems to have no understanding of Jonathan’s viewpoint, on the other hand-or he’s (badly) trying to force Jonathan into definitions. At least he directly asked Jonathan what he meant by “pillars of the church are the saints.” Ask Jonathan to define his terms and he will. BE DIRECT.
59:40 "If you stray from the truth, you won't get anywhere"
No, if you stray from the truth, you will get somewhere. And that somewhere will be death and destruction. You might not get there instantly, but you will get there.
My original comment not shown?
"...Transcendent..." Just saying the word does not make one such.
Not sure what these men are trying to say.
What is the a difference between Multiplicity/Unity and Diversity/Inclusion?
What unify s the United Kingdom? We have four Nations but 30% identify as British (UK) the rest 60% identify as English , Northen Irish, Scotish and Welsh. We have a tamed Royal Family who are the Super Rich who were interested in ruling politics. We have local Political representatives we vote for in our country from all nations. The Old money and power is tamed and in the House of lords from all nations. The culture in each nation is a variation on Christiany. Christianity is our state Religion. Why Christianity? The Christians pushed the Vikings and the Pagans out of the country and created the Nation. The Christian puritans won the civil war and controlled the goverment not the King. Only the Goverment is allowed to have an Army. Before this most Lords, Counts and Dukes could field Armys and cause war in the country and they did. Our Culture is christian so our Vlaues and norms are similar. We had an Empire and we used to know when these are different problems happen. When we left India the different cultures attacked each other. We had kept the appart for 200 years. The Year we left 100,000 murders and purges happened between the Hindus and Muslims. You need something the unify
Multiplicity/prime matter/chaos and unity/form/order are the two opposed principles between which reality exists in traditional cosmology.
Diversity/inclusion are two buzzwords used largely synonymously by modern leftists.
What you are saying is that belief is an art.
Jonathan looks like a wise groundhog when he shakes his head and raises his eyebrows.