You will go down in history john, you're work is truly priceless and the generations to come, will expand on it, just like you did with the great thinkers before you.
The distinction between I-Thou and I-it is extremely relevant to our current time. In the last 20 years I have seen how much negative impact can be generated by corporate leaders who treat their teams with an I-it approach
I love Guys line at 27:45 :"when I start to encounter you as a thou, I can feel a different I coming online". Approaching someone, wanting something from somebody always creates a new sense of what one is. In the encounter I am stripped naked and openly subjected to my desires and longings that I am Blind to when alone. (Unless I dream, because then I can create I thou in the dream). This is simply very important to me, because like so many modern spiritual people, i went on my journey alone. it felt absolutely fullfilling. But in my highest moments I felt the call to encounter people and show myself to them. This is the way to higher unity and all sorts of obstacles come up along the way.
There's quite a bit to unpack here thanks to Chris, Guy, and John. I'd love to keep seeing Guy in these conversations -- his contributions to the dialogos can't be missed!
Wow. The part about relating to some art as bullshitter or as something that enables proximal learning was great. I instantly saw some things I haven't been able to formulate myself... Great talk, great series.
When I was young, our pastor talked about Agape and Eros. It was central to everything he ever taught. He illustrated them using arrows. Eros was symbolized by a hooked arrow; Agape, a straight arrow.
I can tell everyone is comfortable enough to be vulnerable and it really enriches the concept of needing to learn to dialogue with aspects of our self that may have opposing views but we need to familiarize ourself with
First of all, what a wonderful conversation to listen in to, thank you all for that! I feel like your recommended read "The Sovereignty of Good" has been an excellent companion and this video really illuminates the reason why decision is a moral action in the way it helps us know another by their actions but are unable to know exactly how they make their decisions that guide their action. I want to give other viewers a recommendation based on what has been helpful to me in following along these conversations in more than a conceptual/propositional way. These topics of course go hand in hand with non-duality (feel like I should qualify this but I'll leave it to you to voice your objections) and hearing a speaker that can point to this in experience is a good exercise to really learn what it means to know in a non-conceptual way. I guess this has shown me the relationship between meditation and contemplation.
This is the first time that one hour conversation is too short for me. Of course, I can listen to it a few more times to understand it better. So far, it's so profound and I feel that it's helping me to articulate my confusion of I-Thou Relationship that I've been experiencing for many years. Please accept my humble thanks to all three of you, with immense gratitude. Thank you.
I think there's good evidence the 'uncertain' is more psychologically fundamental than 'I' or 'thou', considering the job of organisms is first and foremost to deal with the uncertain and not die. Our collaborative nature is an adaptation to better deal with the uncertain, so the uncertain is likely a participant within all of our relationships, and i would guess is personified as the 'other'. Perhaps all dialogue is actually a trialogue in some sense (I thou and other). It feels connected to the notion of the trinity in Christianity to me, though i have no evidence of that other than the number 3 lol Perhaps the uncertain IS the Father, I and thou are the Son, and the relationship between these is the Holy Spirit. What do you think of the relationship between the Trinity and Dialogos @johnvervaeke?
what Chris is explaining at the beginning in his relationship with the stuff in his apartment is the ‘cue’ stage of the habit loop...his environment calls to him, it nudges him on a very deep neurological level, in a way that he is compelled to act...whether or not his response involves conscious choice (true responsibility) or not is the most interesting question!
I recently experienced an insight by reading The Book of Not Knowing, there is existentially no other but other is a creation of your infinite subjectiviy, in the aspect of objects and even of persons. In a sense you create them, in itself they are Nothingness, so you are the demiurge if I understand it correctly. It is a hint to Oneness, other is not there, it is only you no separation but differences, absolute causality of all things through the absolute creativity that you are.
The hyphen in "I - Thou" makes the empty space in which the relationship takes place, though the space is not empty at all, it is full of Presence, the third Spirit/Personality permeating, creating the mutual accountability, and responsibility in the relationship. The void is not a vacuum. It is comprised of the most basic element, air, in Hebrew Ruach; in Greek Pneuma; in Latin Spiritus. Breath, the wind that blows. The stuff from which words are made by forming air in the throat. The Word/Logos is very near you. [Deuteronomy 30:11-16]
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Ultimately it is God, who is Spirit (John 4:24). I also think that the human spirit is composed of the following features: 1 - SPIRIT 1.A. - COMMUNION 1.B. - CONSCIENCE 1.C. - INTUITION And, in case you're interested, the difference between the human spirit and the human soul is: 2 - SOUL 2.A. - HEART 2.A.1. - will 2.A.2. - character 2.A.3. - imagination 2.B. - SOUL(as subset of the complete soul) 2.B.1. - sensibilities 2.B.2. - affections 2.B.3. - emotions 2.B.4. - desires 2.B.5. - appetites 2.B.6. - passions 2.C. - MIND 2.C.1. - understanding 2.C.2. - the faculty of intelligence 2.C.3. - thoughts 2.C.4. - memories In your own words, define “SPIRIT”
@@patrickwagner2978 spirit/Spirit: This term is generally used in reference to the ESSENTIAL nature of a human being (and also of a non-human animal or even of a plant in some religious traditions and metaphysical systems). Although some Theologians use the terms “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably, those from the Abrahamic traditions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) usually consider “soul“ to be a living being (a human person) while “spirit is that part of the person which is non-temporal (the essential self). The lower case form of these words (spirit and soul) is approximately equivalent to the lower case form of the Sanskrit word “ātman”, and obviously, the upper-case form (Soul) refers to “Ātman” or “Paramātman” (“Supersoul“ or “Over-soul“, in English). Cf. “ātman/Ātman”. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this author, the various terms denoting the realm of eternality, such as “The Ground of Being”, “The Unified Field”, “Ultimate Reality”, “Brahman”, and “The Tao”, are fundamentally SYNONYMOUS with those terms referring to the essence of the human being, such as “soul”, “spirit”, “self/Self”, and as mentioned already, “ātman/Ātman”, and “Paramātman”. In fact, one of the four so-called “Great Sayings” (“mahāvākya”, in Sanskrit) of the Upanishads, “ayam ātmā brahma”, very succinctly says as much: “this self is The Unlimited”, or “the soul is The Supersoul”, or “the person is The Totality of Existence”. However, it seems that the overwhelming majority of religionists who use the words “spirit” or “soul”, use them in reference to a separate OBJECT (e.g. “The spirit of man”, “The human spirit”, “We are spirits in the material world”, “I am not a body, but a spirit/soul”). According to my research, most religionists believe that this OBJECT (call it what you will) joins with the human body at the time of conception (or sometimes at birth) and that, upon the demise of the body, this OBJECT travels to another location (either heaven, hell, or purgatory) or else enters into the body of another living being (either a human, non-human animal, or a plant). Some Theologies postulate that the soul and/or the spirit may be mortal and, depending on the moral disposition of the particular person in question, can perish at the time of death (or even during one’s lifetime, known as a spiritual death, or sometime after death, known as “death by hellfire”). Depending on their unique theologies, religionists assume that this OBJECT is located in various places in the human body, even though at conception, there are no developed body parts in which this fictitious OBJECT could possibly be positioned! Some believe that the entire body is pervaded by the soul/spirit, some that it is located in the pituitary gland, or situated in the heart. The word “spirit”, along with the terms "soul”, “truth”, “ego”, and “love” (among others), is undoubtedly one of the most misunderstood and misused words in the English language. In at least ninety percent of the instances in which the word “spirit” (and especially the term “spiritual”) is used in common discourse, a more apposite word could be (and should be) used in its stead. “Spirit” simply refers to the SUBJECT, as opposed to objective reality, and more accurately, the Subject of all subjects (and objects).
@@ReverendDr.Thomas I would define “Spirit” as simply referring to the Objective Reality, as opposed to subjective reality, and more accurately, the oject of the Object (Reality). That little bit of Breath that God breathed into the soil (soul) of the first human. I would be interested to know the sources of your construction of a defintition?
Hi John maybe you see this comment maybe you not. I want to thank you for all your work and the love that you put in to it. And i have a question to you. Do you know the work of David R Hawkins and his map of consciousness? Thanks again❤
I-Thou relationship is compared to Nietzsche. I-Thou relationship believes human empathy. Nietzschean idea is seek to how to blame well. I-Thou relationship followers can do respect others and to heal people perplexed while Nietzschean followers should blame others well. I-Thou relationship suggests relationships equally respectful. "Thou" means literally "God" so when someone regard it as "how equally?" I think it says if we think others as God as we think faith and empathy, it does not make harm to others by certain mode of desire. If we think others as Thou, not you, it can be devotion we also participate in daily life, it makes better understanding to others and respect is possible. Nietzschean idea intentionally harms it, so it is compared to Buber. In South Korean cognitive scientists often introduce the term "까임방지권" which means by easy standing to certain line of thoughts (such as Lacanian) it is infeasible but evil effect, I-Thou relationship is necessary to prevent it happened and guide to people's moral life as common sense can do it. I have perplexed experience and try to keep this teachings of Buber, it is very hard to do always as many people also feel in life. So, keeping this attitude is empathy, though as mankind it is not always possible. Buber is good theorist though.
Feel like I've pretty much checked out of this series. I jump in every so often but it pretty much comes across as gibberish, and I'm quite well versed in dense conversations. Certainly aspects of John's work that I find very insightful and helpful, and i dont doubt that his models are deep and necessary at some level, but when I think about how things like this series ties back into the goals of "solving the metacrisis" or "stealing the culture", I don't understand how the content moves the needle. One thing to consider is that people won't do things unless they tie into their goals towards personal growth, or the feeling of growth. Are we supposed to absorb this content and share it with others? Is this supposed to be some kind of course that we can start a local practice around? Why would they care about this if it is so totally removed from what moves them forward? Are they really going to get a sense that they'll grow with these meditation/ contemplation practices while they fall behind the Joneses and income inequality continues to rise and put pressure on people? Is this project just there solving growth ends for the people producing it? What strikes me as a lack of wisdom is watching 70+ episodes on esoteric conversations like this without there being some kind of actual plan. There's also a serious lack of critical feedback in what I've seen, and I think that might be a self-selection bias towards positive feedback. Feels good, but that shit is dangerous. Stakes are too high for these things to be "solved" by gurus surrounded by yes-men. Though guru is too harsh as far as I can tell. For context; I'm someone who has followed these things because I am trying to live my life based on what I think is "the good", and making an effort to define and refine that concept. I've learned a shit load, but now my sense of the world is totally removed from everyone else in my life, and I don't share their stories or have much sway in stories we share together. People don't care about abstractions, or meta-frameworks, or Spinoza. People care about impressing co-workers, finding love, keeping in top of their bills, and what's going to happen next on the show they're watching on Netflix. I feel like I'm just in this co-parasitic relationship in which both audience and creator are feeding off each other's hope and sense of virtue or duty while in reality are as two snakes devouring one another from the tail. I hope this work ripples out as intended and this comment is just me venting because of personal failures to action philosophy, or lack of fortune, or not following the thread. I hope people are able to do something good and beautiful with it in a way im not imagining when I listen to these, but I bet there are a lot of cracked eggs for this hypothetical omelet.
I appreciate your opinion as an honest account of what this stuff works in you. I just can say that it is helping me in very practical affairs. For instance in my relationship with my work, which is artistic, and demands from me a lot emotionally. Since I enjoy the wisdom these gentlemen convey my life is much more meaningful and, funny to use this word: eficacious. But I guess we are all call for different things and this approach just can't work for everybody. I recommend to you to check the work of Dave Snowden in regard to Complex adaptative systems. I have heard him defining John Vervaeke as a guru (a word that you are hesitant to use in your comment). Dave Snowden proposes a very practical approach to what, imo, are the same basic perennial questions. Best regards.
If your comment had been directed toward yourself from someone else regarding your life's work how would you take it? John does a great deal to avoid being mistaken for a guru, he routinely emphasizes that there is no panacea practice, there is no algorithm, there is no answer = 42... I'm not sure if you're aware but John frequently has discussions on other podcasts with many different thinkers, so I do not agree that he avoids having his work challenged. Watch some of the discussions he's had on Theory of Everything. Your frustration regarding how to 'hack the culture' or reach the populace is something that troubles me immensely. I too am the only one in my personal family/ circle of friends in a position to consume and understand these kinds of arguments. I do not know how to reach them... I wish I did, I think about it almost everyday. How can we instigate transformative experience in someone not currently in a state of deconstruction (not disposed to changing) without tyranny? Is living by example sufficient to push someone into change? Is it even a valid frame to want to instigate change in someone (in the vein of enlightened individuals wanting everyone to become enlightened)?
For me this series has just been an exercise in validating and affirming the participants knowledge of philosophical works. I haven't seen any new philosophy being done yet.
@Roark A few things I'd like to clarify/ push back on: I'm not striking at his life's work. I'm being critical of this format of presenting some of it, and how it relates to the context it is being done in. I don't think he is a guru, but I think Snowden has points worth considering. At the same time, "what should be done then given where we're at and what we know?" Isn't a question I can figure out how to answer. Maybe publishing more dialogues and explorations is being deeply transformative. For the pushback on ideas, you're right. I've seen it elsewhere for sure. But I'm seeing elements of a culture of "feels good, not critical" in some of these dialogues, and honestly, that's probably mostly a frustration about not being in a culture where directness is valued. I think negative feedback is equally important as positive, but for social reasons we avoid the negative (at least where I'm from). I appreciate your concern about "hacking the culture" and not wanting to force people to change. Obviously force is the wrong approach, but somehow opening up conversation space so that people can seriously engage in where we're at as a species seems like the best leverage point to solve the fractal outcomes of our ways of life. Maybe lead by example has some effect, but it seems inadequate. I don't know. I'm tired of thinking about this stuff. I'm tired of the isolation and dread, and nowhere to go with any of these ideas.
Not sure if you watched the video, but he touches on a similar topic around 45:00, IMO there's a similarity between your critique of this series and the text but i'll leave it to you to consider
No cogito ergo sum, start off relating as a kid (cannot internalise initially). Weirdly the i thou is more primordial than cogito ergo sum. Kids don't internalise until later Vulnerability linked with ability, and relation is important. These relationships creates people and can happen pre-language (almost by necessity with child) The book addressed me. Coextensive with the enivronment and by necessity with any environment. Can call you. Like music, called to listen to it because its significant (its being shown as sognificant and i then treat it as such). Always already in a relationship with environment and can becseen in i thou/i it. When heed the call appropriately - this is i-thou
Value laden: environment has a value of existence independent of human use and value of music/art trying to disclose that (outside of i-it,vto get power and what is wanted). Gather together/belong together and accountable to it and accountable for sake of it. Realness for itself. Has an awareness that is not subjective awareness I-thou (arguably beyond personhood and more to do with essential suchness) and i-it is one word. Turning arrow around to thou, how am I relevant to that for its own sake
My personhood can only be realised as I am person constituting. But cannot make it or control it - more like being caught in a wind The job of the artist is to come at it indirectly. The job of the artist is to make you an artist. You think of word 'lovd' and artist job is to show that for you
Reciprocal opening can come back to text again and again for fount of wisdom. Bullshit doesn't allow for this, narrowing instead (same thing told) Not bullshit - forces decision on you, an either or. What am I to do as opposed to what am I to know (whereas bullshit is just agreeing) Uncertainty linked with vulnerability linked with learned ignorance - vulnerability allows for unique sensibility to see things A relationship is a mode of being, rather than on and off. You can't have a relationship (this assumes I thou is a one time thing)
I hope this will not offend you but I think that, whatever you say about the kinds of knowing, you have not really accepted that what you posit as being "the deeper aspects of reality", "the really real", "the ultimate" so on, is not in the range of our understanding. Ok you say you are "participating" in it encouraged by others who do so also. ( importance of churches, synagogues, sanghas, all gatherings of like minded people). But (unconsciously?)you also want to "know" somehow, and hence the anxiety, pain of uncertainty Of course ,as you say , there are different voices in this matter and that's why Kant was successful, for a time, to put an end to quarrels. He also forcefully argued that we can "know" in a different manner and we should, but without the hope of a consensus as we would for example, say, agree that Maxwell's equations predict electromagnetic waves.
You will go down in history john, you're work is truly priceless and the generations to come, will expand on it, just like you did with the great thinkers before you.
The distinction between I-Thou and I-it is extremely relevant to our current time. In the last 20 years I have seen how much negative impact can be generated by corporate leaders who treat their teams with an I-it approach
I love Guys line at 27:45 :"when I start to encounter you as a thou, I can feel a different I coming online". Approaching someone, wanting something from somebody always creates a new sense of what one is. In the encounter I am stripped naked and openly subjected to my desires and longings that I am Blind to when alone. (Unless I dream, because then I can create I thou in the dream). This is simply very important to me, because like so many modern spiritual people, i went on my journey alone. it felt absolutely fullfilling. But in my highest moments I felt the call to encounter people and show myself to them. This is the way to higher unity and all sorts of obstacles come up along the way.
Such a gem of a series. Thanks.
I and Thou has been a lifeline for me these past few months. I appreciate all of your efforts in spreading these messages.
These dialogues continue to push me to reflect deeply, thank you.
There's quite a bit to unpack here thanks to Chris, Guy, and John.
I'd love to keep seeing Guy in these conversations -- his contributions to the dialogos can't be missed!
Absolutely wonderful conversation I appreciate your time JV ❤🍄
Wow. The part about relating to some art as bullshitter or as something that enables proximal learning was great. I instantly saw some things I haven't been able to formulate myself... Great talk, great series.
When I was young, our pastor talked about Agape and Eros. It was central to everything he ever taught. He illustrated them using arrows. Eros was symbolized by a hooked arrow; Agape, a straight arrow.
I can tell everyone is comfortable enough to be vulnerable and it really enriches the concept of needing to learn to dialogue with aspects of our self that may have opposing views but we need to familiarize ourself with
First of all, what a wonderful conversation to listen in to, thank you all for that!
I feel like your recommended read "The Sovereignty of Good" has been an excellent companion and this video really illuminates the reason why decision is a moral action in the way it helps us know another by their actions but are unable to know exactly how they make their decisions that guide their action.
I want to give other viewers a recommendation based on what has been helpful to me in following along these conversations in more than a conceptual/propositional way. These topics of course go hand in hand with non-duality (feel like I should qualify this but I'll leave it to you to voice your objections) and hearing a speaker that can point to this in experience is a good exercise to really learn what it means to know in a non-conceptual way. I guess this has shown me the relationship between meditation and contemplation.
This is the first time that one hour conversation is too short for me. Of course, I can listen to it a few more times to understand it better. So far, it's so profound and I feel that it's helping me to articulate my confusion of I-Thou Relationship that I've been experiencing for many years. Please accept my humble thanks to all three of you, with immense gratitude. Thank you.
Long and short are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
I think there's good evidence the 'uncertain' is more psychologically fundamental than 'I' or 'thou', considering the job of organisms is first and foremost to deal with the uncertain and not die. Our collaborative nature is an adaptation to better deal with the uncertain, so the uncertain is likely a participant within all of our relationships, and i would guess is personified as the 'other'.
Perhaps all dialogue is actually a trialogue in some sense (I thou and other).
It feels connected to the notion of the trinity in Christianity to me, though i have no evidence of that other than the number 3 lol
Perhaps the uncertain IS the Father, I and thou are the Son, and the relationship between these is the Holy Spirit.
What do you think of the relationship between the Trinity and Dialogos @johnvervaeke?
I thou dynamic balance: With proper symmetry of relationship, truth is given life and trust is created, the opening of potential.
what Chris is explaining at the beginning in his relationship with the stuff in his apartment is the ‘cue’ stage of the habit loop...his environment calls to him, it nudges him on a very deep neurological level, in a way that he is compelled to act...whether or not his response involves conscious choice (true responsibility) or not is the most interesting question!
Spinoza did not define love as you define it either, and he can hardly be accused of misconceptions of modernity. He defined it as a feeling. Of joy.
I recently experienced an insight by reading The Book of Not Knowing, there is existentially no other but other is a creation of your infinite subjectiviy, in the aspect of objects and even of persons.
In a sense you create them, in itself they are Nothingness, so you are the demiurge if I understand it correctly.
It is a hint to Oneness, other is not there, it is only you no separation but differences, absolute causality of all things through the absolute creativity that you are.
I'm so happy to hear someone else also makes their decoration decisions based on what the wall wants.
What about setting boundaries?
When you participate and respond to the others "calling" how do you treat their desire to consume you?
The hyphen in "I - Thou" makes the empty space in which the relationship takes place, though the space is not empty at all, it is full of Presence, the third Spirit/Personality permeating, creating the mutual accountability, and responsibility in the relationship. The void is not a vacuum. It is comprised of the most basic element, air, in Hebrew Ruach; in Greek Pneuma; in Latin Spiritus. Breath, the wind that blows. The stuff from which words are made by forming air in the throat. The Word/Logos is very near you. [Deuteronomy 30:11-16]
In your own words, define “SPIRIT”. ☝️🤔☝️
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Ultimately it is God, who is Spirit (John 4:24). I also think that the human spirit is composed of the following features:
1 - SPIRIT
1.A. - COMMUNION
1.B. - CONSCIENCE
1.C. - INTUITION
And, in case you're interested, the difference between the human spirit and the human soul is:
2 - SOUL
2.A. - HEART
2.A.1. - will
2.A.2. - character
2.A.3. - imagination
2.B. - SOUL(as subset of the complete soul)
2.B.1. - sensibilities
2.B.2. - affections
2.B.3. - emotions
2.B.4. - desires
2.B.5. - appetites
2.B.6. - passions
2.C. - MIND
2.C.1. - understanding
2.C.2. - the faculty of intelligence
2.C.3. - thoughts
2.C.4. - memories
In your own words, define “SPIRIT”
@@patrickwagner2978
spirit/Spirit:
This term is generally used in reference to the ESSENTIAL nature of a human being (and also of a non-human animal or even of a plant in some religious traditions and metaphysical systems). Although some Theologians use the terms “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably, those from the Abrahamic traditions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) usually consider “soul“ to be a living being (a human person) while “spirit is that part of the person which is non-temporal (the essential self). The lower case form of these words (spirit and soul) is approximately equivalent to the lower case form of the Sanskrit word “ātman”, and obviously, the upper-case form (Soul) refers to “Ātman” or “Paramātman” (“Supersoul“ or “Over-soul“, in English). Cf. “ātman/Ātman”.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this author, the various terms denoting the realm of eternality, such as “The Ground of Being”, “The Unified Field”, “Ultimate Reality”, “Brahman”, and “The Tao”, are fundamentally SYNONYMOUS with those terms referring to the essence of the human being, such as “soul”, “spirit”, “self/Self”, and as mentioned already, “ātman/Ātman”, and “Paramātman”. In fact, one of the four so-called “Great Sayings” (“mahāvākya”, in Sanskrit) of the Upanishads, “ayam ātmā brahma”, very succinctly says as much: “this self is The Unlimited”, or “the soul is The Supersoul”, or “the person is The Totality of Existence”.
However, it seems that the overwhelming majority of religionists who use the words “spirit” or “soul”, use them in reference to a separate OBJECT (e.g. “The spirit of man”, “The human spirit”, “We are spirits in the material world”, “I am not a body, but a spirit/soul”). According to my research, most religionists believe that this OBJECT (call it what you will) joins with the human body at the time of conception (or sometimes at birth) and that, upon the demise of the body, this OBJECT travels to another location (either heaven, hell, or purgatory) or else enters into the body of another living being (either a human, non-human animal, or a plant). Some Theologies postulate that the soul and/or the spirit may be mortal and, depending on the moral disposition of the particular person in question, can perish at the time of death (or even during one’s lifetime, known as a spiritual death, or sometime after death, known as “death by hellfire”). Depending on their unique theologies, religionists assume that this OBJECT is located in various places in the human body, even though at conception, there are no developed body parts in which this fictitious OBJECT could possibly be positioned! Some believe that the entire body is pervaded by the soul/spirit, some that it is located in the pituitary gland, or situated in the heart. The word “spirit”, along with the terms "soul”, “truth”, “ego”, and “love” (among others), is undoubtedly one of the most misunderstood and misused words in the English language. In at least ninety percent of the instances in which the word “spirit” (and especially the term “spiritual”) is used in common discourse, a more apposite word could be (and should be) used in its stead.
“Spirit” simply refers to the SUBJECT, as opposed to objective reality, and more accurately, the Subject of all subjects (and objects).
@@ReverendDr.Thomas I would define “Spirit” as simply referring to the Objective Reality, as opposed to subjective reality, and more accurately, the oject of the Object (Reality). That little bit of Breath that God breathed into the soil (soul) of the first human.
I would be interested to know the sources of your construction of a defintition?
Hi John maybe you see this comment maybe you not.
I want to thank you for all your work and the love that you put in to it.
And i have a question to you.
Do you know the work of David R Hawkins and his map of consciousness? Thanks again❤
I like John's Shoes
I-Thou relationship is compared to Nietzsche. I-Thou relationship believes human empathy. Nietzschean idea is seek to how to blame well. I-Thou relationship followers can do respect others and to heal people perplexed while Nietzschean followers should blame others well. I-Thou relationship suggests relationships equally respectful. "Thou" means literally "God" so when someone regard it as "how equally?" I think it says if we think others as God as we think faith and empathy, it does not make harm to others by certain mode of desire.
If we think others as Thou, not you, it can be devotion we also participate in daily life, it makes better understanding to others and respect is possible. Nietzschean idea intentionally harms it, so it is compared to Buber.
In South Korean cognitive scientists often introduce the term "까임방지권" which means by easy standing to certain line of thoughts (such as Lacanian) it is infeasible but evil effect, I-Thou relationship is necessary to prevent it happened and guide to people's moral life as common sense can do it.
I have perplexed experience and try to keep this teachings of Buber, it is very hard to do always as many people also feel in life. So, keeping this attitude is empathy, though as mankind it is not always possible. Buber is good theorist though.
Feel like I've pretty much checked out of this series. I jump in every so often but it pretty much comes across as gibberish, and I'm quite well versed in dense conversations. Certainly aspects of John's work that I find very insightful and helpful, and i dont doubt that his models are deep and necessary at some level, but when I think about how things like this series ties back into the goals of "solving the metacrisis" or "stealing the culture", I don't understand how the content moves the needle. One thing to consider is that people won't do things unless they tie into their goals towards personal growth, or the feeling of growth. Are we supposed to absorb this content and share it with others? Is this supposed to be some kind of course that we can start a local practice around? Why would they care about this if it is so totally removed from what moves them forward? Are they really going to get a sense that they'll grow with these meditation/ contemplation practices while they fall behind the Joneses and income inequality continues to rise and put pressure on people? Is this project just there solving growth ends for the people producing it?
What strikes me as a lack of wisdom is watching 70+ episodes on esoteric conversations like this without there being some kind of actual plan.
There's also a serious lack of critical feedback in what I've seen, and I think that might be a self-selection bias towards positive feedback. Feels good, but that shit is dangerous. Stakes are too high for these things to be "solved" by gurus surrounded by yes-men. Though guru is too harsh as far as I can tell.
For context; I'm someone who has followed these things because I am trying to live my life based on what I think is "the good", and making an effort to define and refine that concept. I've learned a shit load, but now my sense of the world is totally removed from everyone else in my life, and I don't share their stories or have much sway in stories we share together. People don't care about abstractions, or meta-frameworks, or Spinoza. People care about impressing co-workers, finding love, keeping in top of their bills, and what's going to happen next on the show they're watching on Netflix. I feel like I'm just in this co-parasitic relationship in which both audience and creator are feeding off each other's hope and sense of virtue or duty while in reality are as two snakes devouring one another from the tail.
I hope this work ripples out as intended and this comment is just me venting because of personal failures to action philosophy, or lack of fortune, or not following the thread. I hope people are able to do something good and beautiful with it in a way im not imagining when I listen to these, but I bet there are a lot of cracked eggs for this hypothetical omelet.
I appreciate your opinion as an honest account of what this stuff works in you. I just can say that it is helping me in very practical affairs. For instance in my relationship with my work, which is artistic, and demands from me a lot emotionally. Since I enjoy the wisdom these gentlemen convey my life is much more meaningful and, funny to use this word: eficacious. But I guess we are all call for different things and this approach just can't work for everybody. I recommend to you to check the work of Dave Snowden in regard to Complex adaptative systems. I have heard him defining John Vervaeke as a guru (a word that you are hesitant to use in your comment). Dave Snowden proposes a very practical approach to what, imo, are the same basic perennial questions. Best regards.
If your comment had been directed toward yourself from someone else regarding your life's work how would you take it? John does a great deal to avoid being mistaken for a guru, he routinely emphasizes that there is no panacea practice, there is no algorithm, there is no answer = 42... I'm not sure if you're aware but John frequently has discussions on other podcasts with many different thinkers, so I do not agree that he avoids having his work challenged. Watch some of the discussions he's had on Theory of Everything.
Your frustration regarding how to 'hack the culture' or reach the populace is something that troubles me immensely. I too am the only one in my personal family/ circle of friends in a position to consume and understand these kinds of arguments. I do not know how to reach them... I wish I did, I think about it almost everyday.
How can we instigate transformative experience in someone not currently in a state of deconstruction (not disposed to changing) without tyranny? Is living by example sufficient to push someone into change? Is it even a valid frame to want to instigate change in someone (in the vein of enlightened individuals wanting everyone to become enlightened)?
For me this series has just been an exercise in validating and affirming the participants knowledge of philosophical works. I haven't seen any new philosophy being done yet.
@Roark A few things I'd like to clarify/ push back on: I'm not striking at his life's work. I'm being critical of this format of presenting some of it, and how it relates to the context it is being done in. I don't think he is a guru, but I think Snowden has points worth considering. At the same time, "what should be done then given where we're at and what we know?" Isn't a question I can figure out how to answer. Maybe publishing more dialogues and explorations is being deeply transformative. For the pushback on ideas, you're right. I've seen it elsewhere for sure. But I'm seeing elements of a culture of "feels good, not critical" in some of these dialogues, and honestly, that's probably mostly a frustration about not being in a culture where directness is valued. I think negative feedback is equally important as positive, but for social reasons we avoid the negative (at least where I'm from).
I appreciate your concern about "hacking the culture" and not wanting to force people to change. Obviously force is the wrong approach, but somehow opening up conversation space so that people can seriously engage in where we're at as a species seems like the best leverage point to solve the fractal outcomes of our ways of life. Maybe lead by example has some effect, but it seems inadequate.
I don't know. I'm tired of thinking about this stuff. I'm tired of the isolation and dread, and nowhere to go with any of these ideas.
Not sure if you watched the video, but he touches on a similar topic around 45:00, IMO there's a similarity between your critique of this series and the text but i'll leave it to you to consider
The bookshelf screaming for attention really hits home these days....
Episode 20 is not in the playlist.
Thanks for letting me know!
No cogito ergo sum, start off relating as a kid (cannot internalise initially). Weirdly the i thou is more primordial than cogito ergo sum. Kids don't internalise until later
Vulnerability linked with ability, and relation is important. These relationships creates people and can happen pre-language (almost by necessity with child)
The book addressed me. Coextensive with the enivronment and by necessity with any environment. Can call you. Like music, called to listen to it because its significant (its being shown as sognificant and i then treat it as such). Always already in a relationship with environment and can becseen in i thou/i it. When heed the call appropriately - this is i-thou
Value laden: environment has a value of existence independent of human use and value of music/art trying to disclose that (outside of i-it,vto get power and what is wanted). Gather together/belong together and accountable to it and accountable for sake of it. Realness for itself. Has an awareness that is not subjective awareness
I-thou (arguably beyond personhood and more to do with essential suchness) and i-it is one word.
Turning arrow around to thou, how am I relevant to that for its own sake
My personhood can only be realised as I am person constituting. But cannot make it or control it - more like being caught in a wind
The job of the artist is to come at it indirectly. The job of the artist is to make you an artist. You think of word 'lovd' and artist job is to show that for you
Prophet: calling out salient eternal patterns
Sage: transformative wisdom for sake of others
Reciprocal opening can come back to text again and again for fount of wisdom. Bullshit doesn't allow for this, narrowing instead (same thing told)
Not bullshit - forces decision on you, an either or. What am I to do as opposed to what am I to know (whereas bullshit is just agreeing)
Uncertainty linked with vulnerability linked with learned ignorance - vulnerability allows for unique sensibility to see things
A relationship is a mode of being, rather than on and off. You can't have a relationship (this assumes I thou is a one time thing)
Duty loses some of its meaning as the Romantic Era begins depending on which social class one belongs to.
Person and personality are completely different. Person is transformed into God while personality is not.
What is personality transformed into?
❤
Wow.
🌚☄️❤️💫
I hope this will not offend you but I think that, whatever you say about the kinds of knowing, you have not really accepted that what you posit as being "the deeper aspects of reality", "the really real", "the ultimate" so on, is not in the range of our understanding. Ok you say you are "participating" in it encouraged by others who do so also. ( importance of churches, synagogues, sanghas, all gatherings of like minded people). But (unconsciously?)you also want to "know" somehow, and hence the anxiety, pain of uncertainty Of course ,as you say , there are different voices in this matter and that's why Kant was successful, for a time, to put an end to quarrels. He also forcefully argued that we can "know" in a different manner and we should, but without the hope of a consensus as we would for example, say, agree that Maxwell's equations predict electromagnetic waves.
🔻🔺