Dr. John Vervaeke and Jonathan Pageau in Dialectic
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 жов 2022
- Having presented their own views on Consciousness and Conscience, Dr. John Vervaeke and Jonathan Pageau discuss the concepts presented.
If you appreciate this video and would like to support Urban Abbey in offering content like this, please consider donating at urbanabbey.ca/give-1
I love how deeply informed but at the same time extremely pragmatic Jonathans approach is. He's always keeping a practical grip in the real world, no matter how abstract his thoughts sound.
That was the most lit dialogos I've ever heard. Will have to re-listen again.
freakin' dank dialogos, dude
John was really on a hot streak there. We call that the flow state baby.
@@JUXTAHRAW ^
54:20 "The Nexus of a horizontal and a vertical transfer..." To me it sounds like you are describing a cross for me John...maybe not a cross but the cross(!) Just saying ;-).
Loved the talk! It's a Joy to Listen to the both of you using different words to talk almost about the same things but still with a slightly different perspective so something new is able to emerge! That's Dialogos right?
Haven't watched yet, but I just want to say going in that I love how Dr. Vervaeke helps me deal with my Christian heritage, while also finding transcendent meaning in the secular world, using non-Christian practices. It is so helpful that these two have dialogues together.
"My level of arousal is constantly evolving its fittedness to the context."
“Jesus is just a copy on all these old gods, and it’s like, yeah, you mean, all of them ?!?!? Like, every single one of them?” Loved this so much! You are such an amazing distillery of truth, Jonathan! Thank you so much. 🙏
I just re-noticed the cute illustration at the intro and outro of these videos and wanted to let whoever made those know, I really really love them! Thank you for your work!
I particularly love the 4 corners aspect of it! 😉
The organizers daughter made it. Very talented girl.
This is like watching my left brain speak with my right brain about the reality of our existence.
This was fascinating and brilliant. Thank you John and Jonathan 🙏
these are the two, we need them
Thanks John and Jonathan!
This is gold. Thank you both, once again, for allowing others to see the beauty of dialogos. When two masters of their craft collide in cordial discourse, insights emerge in abundance, as is evident here. Thank you once again
Parasympathetic: A Safe Context in which You can Recover, Recuperate, and Digest
FANTASTIC! Thank you!
Awe, we missed them embrace at (after the video ends).
The result/cause of the the polar processes is the same result/cause of the two symbols of right and left hand, which of course is at the center of all those images: the Logos.That was a profound connection to be seen made. This was the best dialog they've had to date, by far.
They go out, they go out, full of tears,
carrying seed for the sowing:
they come back, they come back, full of song,
carrying their sheaves
~ Psalm 126
Guys, you’re looking for the difference between ritual and compulsion.
That’s the difference between the sacred and the inner life.
A compulsion is a private ritual that feels necessary, but in the end isn’t te centre line the individual needs.
My fave public intellectual duo
Amazing, thanks.
That sort of compression is what you're looking for in a poem. The images should be multivalent.
The heart is what tells you what's important, John.
My God, John, let Pageau speak.
Two of the most interesting thinkers today
That Mother Joke got a Big Laugh from Pageau!
The scaling part is more easily explained going down than going up to a person like VVK... Just use Aristotle. The identity of the sacred is suffused in all of creation, nested in a hierarchy, where every instance is an opportunity to participate of the sacred. If you treat each moment as sacred then you hold that moment to the standard of God. And that is very close although not identical to the image that Aristotle shares of virtue. It's about doing the right thing in the right at the right time. The divine is the throughline that knits all those moments together and that which they all share: the possibility of communion.
Very much akin to DC Schindler's definition of freedom as perfect readiness (and thus also akin to John on meta-optimal grip)
Wow. This was superb
Great conversation
Jesus as a nexus of all things. A combination of everything. A source of ethical behavior. The cosmic meal that joins the masses. and becomes one all encompassing whole.
Just slap a picture of Jesus up every time John says sun around 39 minutes, and people will be able to understand Christianity
You are exactly right! It’s CS Lewis on steroids combined with Acts 17:28 “For in him we live and move and have our being...”
Do you think Rudolph Steiner added anything to the understanding of Christ or is it bunk? I find his descriptions of the mystery of Golgotha and the interplay of Buddha and Christ very compelling. Namaste
This became outstanding as it went on, especially the understanding of ritual as putting you into a state of meta optimal grip, like a martial arts stance from which you can best shift into various appropriate moves; the greatest chance of relevant transfer (and thus the mass doing this cosmically and putting the participants into a practice of reverence and love to spread out into the world)
^ very much freedom as perfect readiness as per DC Schindler's definition in The Perfection of Freedom.
Dialectical beings. Learned a new word thanks
Ask John about deepening Prajna exercise, stop breathing, focus on heart out and in
The point of Wim Hof Method is to unite sympathetic and parasympathetic. That's what the breathing does and that's also what relaxing in cold water does.
Inhale, and God approaches. Hold the inhalation, and God remains with you. Exhale, and you approach God. Hold the exhalation, and surrender to God. -Krishnamacharya
This convo needs some Hayek. Vervaeke is talking about setting up the conditions for a system to self-construct as a system of human action but not of human design. Spontaneous order.
48:57 for proof Vervaeke is an angel
About 23 minutes in, John Vervaeke says what sounds like: the "scincia" in to the "ativa". He then uses the example of " Seeing the whole universe in a grain of sand" right after. I am wondering if someone can tell me what these actual terms are and how to spell them. Thank you.
I think it's a buddhist phrase, sounds like scinci unativa, or something. nothing on google. He's talking about geist, though, and relating /relevance realization on objects and systems and how they extrapolate. The universe in a grain of sand is worth a google search though.
'Scientia Intuitiva' from Spinoza. Not prepared to define the term but at least I could help with the spelling, ha!
@@peten5426 THANK YOU!
@@tara_artist My pleasure
Wow
Keypoint around min55 when John gets the crossbeams. It is followed by some clumsy attempt to go higher on Vervaeke’s part. I sense he will never get above that without God.
Interesting you said two pillars Jonathan. I wonder if these two components of cognitive processing relate to Boaz and Jachin
I want to hear more about the demons.
Very good.
Why in Dialectic? Why not in Dialogos?
Sympathetic: Threat or Opportunity to Raise Arousal
Do you think the body is more so in symbiosis or in a tug of war of resources, like the opponent processing vervaeke describes with his hands? Some biologists and nutritionists describe the microbiome and the cells being at war, there are more bacteria in us than cells and all that...
Those biologists are wrong, and there is no war within the mind or body, other than in people with some degree of mental health problems. In civilization, yes, parasympathetic and sympathetic are in conflict BUT only because civilization is not natural. In civilization we are either in sympathetic mode or parasympathetic mode, but in nature or in a fully natural act, we can be in both. Is sex relaxing? Yes, very. Is it exciting? Yes, very. Flow states are both. Working in a cubicle job is often neither, or just one or the other. It's only both if you get into a great flow state crunching numbers in Excel.
Bacteria in the body, and every other living thing that makes its home in the body, helps the body. The idea of "bad bacteria" is a pernicious myth. Microbes that live in the body are never the enemy, despite a million fables spun since Pasteur.
I get that Vervaeke has understood and been a leading man in most of the concepts that have been floating as in what Paul calls “this little corner of the internet”. And his work is the reason why Paul and Jonathan talk to him so much, but most of the time I get a little repelled and lose attention in his wordy language. I’m too uneducated perhaps, maybe I need more exposure to him but he’s too technical in things he’s trying to express. Maybe that’s not the word for it, but it feels unnecessarily heavy. I do understand what he’s saying but it feels like he’s gone from it from all sides and is trying to cover each and every one of the sides and it feels unnecessarily heavy. Hard to explain it just has unnecessary weight to it. Dead weight could be the word.
You just need to be exposed more to him as you suggested. It was the same for me with all of them. It's wonderful how the brain connect the dots when you attend to anything for an ample amount of time. Trust me Vervaeke's work plays a humongous role in all of this.
Vervaeke's opening remarks were highly condensed. I think he is trying to strike a balance between explaining things to people who aren't already familiar with the idea he wants to express, but at the same time he doesn't want to spend too much time explaining things that others have heard him say dozens of times.
At his worst Vervaeke can slip into "too much in his own head" private language where he verbally gesticulates at the idea with too-condensed of a term, but over time the points should land.
I felt exactly that way and yet there was something in it that drew me in. I followed the entire Awakening to the Meaning Crisis series and then his interviews with others and gradually began to grasp more and more of his concepts after repeated listenings. What can be is especially helpful are interviews with people uninitiated to his ideas...like Lex Friedman and some others floating around where he breaks down his ideas in understandable ways. I listen and watch while working out so I have time to absorb this stuff although admittedly I feel like I should be taking notes in class. But hours of exposure will yield greater understanding and in my opinion well worth it. Also his Theory of Everything interviews including the ones with Bernardo Kasrtrup are especially elucidating. Good luck I think he is a brilliant man with some helpful insights to share with humanity.
After a while of being sucked in, trying to look for gems of wisdom, I remember Jon thinks all of this Jesus resurrection stuff is real, so I get discouraged from listening further.
Who are you to frame Jonathan as not right and all this being about re-grounding democracy? Lol. Democracy is a failed system.
What system do you suggest instead?
@@KalebPeters99 Monarchy
@@ivan.engelchristisking Both systems are capable of being run by benevolent or malevolent individuals.
Democracy is as old as Zoroastrian. Like any civilisation going through big change, democracy too needs help to realign it's purpose.
There has never been and never will be a democracy. We live in an aristocracy. Democracy is just the window dressing for the masses. Voting makes zero difference. We need a tool to ground aristocracy, which is apparently Christianity since Christianity is what was around back in openly monarcic/aristocratic days. The *illusion* of democracy is what killed God, and the reason for that illusion was collectivist scientism where "anyone can contribute" regardless of intelligence. The old system of thinkers like Mach and Berkeley was a system of individualist "science" in the old sense of logical reasoning with great semantic clarity, based on a first-person epistemology, with religion taken less directly literally by the aristocracy, who were the intellectuals. Now everyone is an intellectual but they're collectivist in their approach. Social, not truly analytical.