The world is turning to giving hands. To the three of you, Be aware that the influence, kairotic earnestness and sheer dialogical (or trialogical in this case) quality and ethic of this conversation is affecting the world. I know because I am halfway around the other side of it from where I assume you are. Look at these comments. Trust not only in your own work but in the work that you do not know of, and know that many are aiming to serve a similar, if not identical, purpose. To Tolkenise...the beacon of Amon Dīn is lit, and hope is rekindled. All this to say keep going, by God, keep going. And remember this is to all three of you. Thank you, and much love, Noah Tim, you gracious hero
True Good and the Beautiful. Ethics ontology and epistemology. This conversation is very convergent, outstanding. Must be studied! Thank you John, Forrest, and Tim! Top 10 voices with Vervaeke!
Forrest Landry is a fucking mentat. It might take a couple days to reintegrate my reality after listening to that conversation. John and Forrest thank you so much. It's a beacon of hope knowing that there are minds of your calibers operating in this problem space.
I'm forever grateful to Jim Rutt for introducing me to Forrest Landry on his podcast. This is the type of guy that you keep rewinding the same 5 minutes over and over again and then get a glimpse of some deep Truth.
@@filipo7703 Yes indeed! I have listened to the Jim Rutt conversations at least 10 times with countless rewinds while doing so. The wisdom of Forrest Landry, Jordan Hall, Zak Stein, and Daniel Schmachtenberger, and John Vervaeke, is a joy to behold. I search the internet daily for their words.
A few months ago, I noticed some similarities between the frameworks JV & FL use even though they were engineered to solve different problems. It's difficult to express how exciting it was to see them publicly engage in mapping across their linguistic domains 😆😆😆 Tim, mad props for being the conduit that afforded this phenomenal exchange; you have my gratitude 🙏
What an unbelievable conversation! It feels like this connected the threads of every effable and ineffable insight that I've heard to date on the meaning crisis and the shape of a solution in as concise and rigorous a way as possible. Please do this again
Thank you Tim, you provided a great service as facilitator during this conversation, normally as host I would thank the guests first but John has shared your podcast on his channel, thank you Forrest and John for a dialog that shows the other worlds that integrate seamlessly with similar interests, really good conversation. Peace
Thank you John and Forrest for this amazing conversation! For those who didn’t read Forrest book yet, ‘’An Immanent Metaphysics’’ here is a quick overview that I made following one of the Jim Rutt Podcast that might be helpful:
Choice is transcendent. Choice is part of a triplicate of the domain of what is Real: In order to grasp what is real we need: Choice, causation (omniscient), change (immanente) In every domain that it is to know in order to cover the basis we always need three concepts. Like in language you would need to know about : Statement (immanent) Syntax (omniscient) Semantic ( transcendent because it goes beyond the domain of language, like pointing to a possibility as well) (lEx: you would need statements, as they are the units of meaningfulness, so few of them (many instances) in order to even make syntax (to make one Class) and few classes to make semantic. A soundness concept. Perfected hard randomness and choice have the same sort of difference as causality and determinism has. Choice and causation are in fact duals to one another.. In other words, a symmetry between determinism and indeterminism. Transcendent, omniscient and immanente. Distinct, inseparable, non interchangeable. Like in the concept of Universe if we would want to know all about it we would need to know about those 3 primal concepts: Creation (transcendent) Existence (omniscient) Interaction (immanente) When we want to talk about one of them we have to use the other 2 of the triplicates to describe one component. Co-emergency. Like co-emergency also in itself if we are to describe it, we needs the concept of process, and further, the concept of interaction) The 3 modalities correspond to the axioms! Because metaphysics explains itself and the one that is doing the metahysicing) Because the pattern of relationship is the same between domains, isomorphism! -Axiom 1 to omniscient, third person -Axiom 2 to immanent , first hand experience (therefore the observer is included, and the act of ‘’metaphysicing’’ describing itself….in other words, the process of being aware of the process itself.....powerful!) -Axiom 3 transcendent, second person (basis of the mediation of axiom 1 and 2) In this particular talk here some of the triples that have being used Purpose Value Meaning Vision Strategy Culture Complexity Clarity Simplicity Thank you Forrest, I always love your flow! And its lacing beauty...
Powerful conversation. Would love to see a triad of sorts practiced with a balance of three voices; not just two. Grateful for the spiritual or subtle realm underpinning in all of this. Looking forward to many more listens. So much to take in! Thank you ❤️
Missed this conversation on your channel, just caught it on Tim’s. I’ve appreciated many conversations you’ve shared but this tops them all (that I’ve watched, at least). In my work in the corporate setting I’ve taught and led some of your ideas around problem solving and some of Forrest’s (attempted, anyhow) around ephemeral group process. This conversation leaves me hungry to try to get a grip on Forrests more fundamental bases…axioms
Suddenly just hit me, it's nice that Tim is present as a kind of representative / "stand in" for "the audience". Not so much for us as for you (John) and Forrest as a ... how do I want to out it, a third, a kind of passive counter balance for the dynamic of the conversation. *somehow the idea of the communing and communicative act feels apt to what I was trying to express
1:38:16 clarity of good questions. This importance of understanding this point may not be understated. Epistemological honesty and humility / "good faith" as a basis for relationship.
Glad to see this happen! Question: What is meant by a CEO "putting strategy first" and later in the dialog, individuals "slipping into strategy-first habits"? Is that thoughts like "how to make money" or "how to gain notoriety" or "how to bring a product to market"?
That's how I understood it. Manipulating company culture and vision towards the end of more profit or production at the expense of the integrity of the whole system.
Am I right in my intuition that this is an evolved form of dialogos? It looks as if the third party in the conversation is a flow mediator, keeping salient the structure and input of the conversation. Whereas the other two parties are steeped in the content.
If you do the Net Joy Integral you don't have to consider $$. A comet strike is inevidable. Glaciers will melt and rivers dry up AND once the oceans heat up it's gonna rain and snow all of the time. Damn straight, Forrest!
A interesting topic I would love to see you guys go into. What it means to love Satan. Thats what comes to my mind when thinking about depth of our psyche and thinking.
This conversation stays on my mind. I have questions. I will use at first the triplicate of vision, strategy and culture to help figure out what I am understanding or missing. Would it be right to say that Forrest’s metaphysics tool kit, so well used in that particular conversation, is also the equivalent of the three modalities in the descriptive realm? But depending on when, to whom, and how it is used it can be one or the other (or none?) in a given context? In the embodied realm the book the immanent metaphysics, or the tool kit as you express it is it more akin to a strategy (omniscient) when used as such a tool of re-factoring for other bodies of work? I see the tool kit in that conversation as a movement or pivotal point from Forrest Subjective to the world (objective). What is the equivalent of the vision preceding the sharing of the tool kit? What was the vision before the creation of the Immanent Metaphysics? I am curious of the inner space, or the practice that helped you to bring that out to the world. I am also curious what culture or emergent qualities within this present one you see that would be necessary for the Immanent Metaphysics to be embodied on a larger scale? Would it be right to see for example, because I remember Forrest being influenced in a way by Charles Sanders Pierce, that this influence became the axiom 1 or the immanent modality of Forrest, and he made it moves through axiom 2, his omniscient and out in the world. axiom 3 as it transcend just the relationship to the world and enter the subjectivity of someone else… and that this influence Forrest has, for example, to John is becoming potentially John’s immanent? I had the impression I understood, at least in a basic way, the movement throughout domains of learning or description of the world, but I never thought about the rotations of the axioms from people to people. And especially when those people are also the creators of theories that are flowing into one another. It feels very fractal-ish! :) I see here how the tool kit is being helpful. Another question: as it seems these days that everything, even kindness, can be weaponized, I wonder how this tool kit could be used in a negative way? I am trying to think of a specific situation that would be the case and can’t find it yet. Is it possible that when used in a negative way it becomes a none-modality? Is it even possible to have something external to that frame of triplicate? I am sorry if it is such a mess in my sharing. I am not an intellectual. I am certainly an enthusiast though. And when I listen and think with the notions that you intellectuals are sharing it brings a sense of both relief (parasympathetic) and expansion and stimulation (sympathetic) in my body-mind that is quite pleasurable. Thank you.
The bit about false testimony reminded me of Jian Gomeshi: one person swore out a complaint, then three others, then the trial for the complaints of the three others wherein falsification was found, *then* the first complainant withdrew their complaint. Very curious sequence of events.
(UA-cam vanished my comment after I tried to edit it…. So this is a repost)You know the one problem with your project really is as JP2 said, without a tradition and structured spaces it can easily just eat itself and fragment. Because if we all just make our own meaning instead of inheriting a tradition and working through it… there’s nothing to prevent someone charismatic from coming in and just flipping everything on it’s head just because they are better at bullshiting and salience field manipulation. So for me, going through all the lessons you teach really just ended up pointing me to Christianity. Not that it had to be Christianity because I certainly can attest to the depth of Daoism, but because I am a human being so I can’t just float above the world picking and choosing between what I like to make a religious cocktail… I need to seek the truth from where I am at. Sincerely, was atheist until I came across you and Jonathan.
I have to say there seems like a much higher chance of manipulation through tradition. Theres quite a long history of charismatic manipulation in traditional religion. I think one of the big concerns people have with tradition is that it can often excuse people from critical, analytical thinking.
@@mediocrates3416 define the words: lies, Christianity and fix? There’s so much history and diversity in Christianity that it’s difficult to really interpret your meaning. If you mean in terms of the extent that the present day church has strayed from the original intent and meaning of Christianity then I can get on board with that, especially as growing up I certainly did not find the level of meaning in Christianity that I did after discovering JP, JP2, PVK, and JV.
@@shamanic_nostalgia I disagree, without a tradition whoever is the most charismatic wins, because without a tradition there’s not not much a strong standard that has authority to compare to. With a long standing tradition the best a charismatic manipulative person can hope for is that the people in the present day don’t really understand the traditions… so there may be times where the church is corrupt and people can take advantage… but because theres an actual tradition, the next generation can always recover the tradition by ignoring any deviant manipulation that has occurred present day by going into tradition and reflecting on in what way current leadership has strayed from a reasonable interpretation. With 2000 years of Christianity and another 2000 years of Judaism for the Old Testament… there’s not really going to be any “creativity”…. Anything people might highly debate has been debated 2000-4000 years… so the extent you can be fooled by people with bad intentions to a large extent depends on how well you understand the full history and development of your tradition.
I don't get what Forrest means about axiom 1 and axiom 2 relationships, I don't even know what that is. Is he referring to the first three axioms of probability or something entirely different? Also at 2:11:00, "reification of the first order, and of the second and the third". If someone can explain this to me, I'd appreciate that.
Forrest has written a lot! I figure in there somewhere he's stated his axioms, apparently wrt his triads which seem to be objective/subjective/whole, or something like that. ... Maybe someone will correct me *and* explain reification? .... ? Ima guess later, for kicks😁😂
Forrest is referring to Axiom 1 and Axiom 2 in his work "An Immanent Metaphysics". I've got a link to it here on hand: www.magic-flight.com/pub/uvsm_1/idm_foundations_01.pdf It takes some time to familiarize with, but I'll try an (simplified!) introduction: *Axiom 1 makes the case that the Immanent modality is more fundamental than the Omniscient and/or the Transcendent. An example would be Vervaeke's term Transjective, conveying the idea that the relationship between subjective and objective is more fundamental than either subjective or objective. *Axiom 2 describes a kind of rotation between the modalities, how one modality flows into one other. In Forrest's words, understanding Axiom 2 might be the hardest part of the metaphysics, but is (in my view) the utmost profound one. The richest examples are found in the manuscript, particularly in the part on Choice, Change, and Causation. I won't go into more detail, because I'll likely propagate misunderstandings. I'm doing my own reading of the work myself, working out the meanings of the axioms. It's not worth doing the modalities here, reading the manuscript should be the way to go if it interests you.
Quick query for anyone, how do epistemology, ontology and metaphysics fit together, i can’t get my head around the distinction or the need for all of them, any 2 would seem sufficient…
The relationship between Epistemology (potential of knowledge) and ontology (structure of reality) and ethics were discussed around 1:26. I believe these three comprise a complete metaphysics. Epistemology and ethics are conjugate and, when balanced, increase and evolve ontology.
Ok, my Webster's college dictionary has a Fourth meaning of afford: to give, to confer upon: "to afford great pleasure to someone." That is an OLD English usage that may be like "bespoke" that is used to describe measurements for "fancy goods" like British fancy folks of the Upper Classes. Like a Montreal attempt to turn "dope" into meaning something "cool" and special in the Afro-Canadian community, another "influencer" trying to change meanings of words for class distinction. "Intellectual ice cream castles in the air" (Joni Mitchell) are a sort of classism, and dear John, when you go as far as "Eidetic eduction," you have gone beyond what "any major dude will tell you" Steely Dan euphemisms that mere mortals can observe and educe any meaning? Like(?), eh? IDK (I Don't Know)
Hate is like antifragile. Fragile, robust, antifragile. Love, apathy, hate. Math models reality more than reality models math. If you hate the haters are you hateful? Women are like sports cars, they keep getting prettier, better, and faster. Don't aspire to be a leader, aspire to be the difference between good enough and amazing. If I am remembered at all, it will be through misattribution. Inspiration has limited application. I am tired of the optimists prancing around like giddy teenagers while everything burns.
"Conatus": stability (does stability include "homeostasis"? ... it better😂👍). In the case of consciousness; the reproductive continuity of the driving function. Reference Jordan Peterson's "lobster tank" stuff: depression changes the driving function... Does depression affect memory? I'm thinking it should.
Forgive me - perhaps I just lack the intelligence necessary to appreciate this discussion... (and I mean that sincerely) Honestly - there was little to nothing of the 'spirit' (if I may call it) of "dialogos" here - and so much was expressed with a meta-language (from Landry) that I found almost(?) incomprehensible.... Upon reflection there was for me no intuitive resonance like, "Ah! that is true to life!" Instead (again, I realize subjectively, 'to me') it was sterile and technical (except for John's attempts to respond - which always seem to be reaching to bring the conversation back to the beautiful, transcendent mystery that Reality is). Full disclosure - I had to stop after an hour and 35 minutes... perhaps I gave up too soon?
No; you're correct in your assesment. I watch the whole thing, you didn't miss anything. More different language won't help; fixing the original errors is what needs doing.
Due to lack of time I've not been able to watch the whole video yet, I am at 1:20h. However, I find Landry's refactoring useful in that it clarifies some of John's explanations. I feel that they provide a model that is easier to structure. As you say, John's language adds the "transcendent mystery that Reality is". That might be because he has worked on that from a philosophical and cog psych and because John has more experience explaining this topics to other people (he is a professor at the university, teaches mindfulness, has youtube videos reaching "average" people, ...). However, I wouldn't dismiss Landry's intervention just for the language and lack of intuitive resonance during the first attempt to watch the video. Indeed, the first triad of strategy, culture and vision hit hard on me.
@@vicaba02 Landry has some cool metaphysics, to be sure: respect! I disagree with his charaterization of the dynamical triad you reference: imo, our culture's strategy uses vision to guide behaviour; the essential functionality does not change as technology adds more items. Our culture hasn't changed in a spiritual sense for centuries; hence the meaning crisis. It's like the easy and hard problems of consciousness; the easy problem is hard cuz so many details and the hard problem is easy cuz it's just a matter of recognition. They're baffling the average person with details when the issue is who are "we" and what will we do. There is certainly much to be done by *us* .
Sovereign Love, What "hit hard" on me was that I found the meaning crisis, or at least part of it, well clarified by the triad culture, vision and strategy in that strategy (purpose) has taken a fundamental position in meaning-making and that culture should be in the fundamental position instead. I understand that what Landry is saying is that *now*, a strategy more centered on the individual or group of individuals is generating a vision that is not taking into account the whole reality (and instead the interests of the smaller group) and then creating a culture around it ("adding" people with the same vision). I would go like: strategy->vision->culture However, @Mediocrates says that disagrees with that formulation and that "our culture's strategy uses vision to guide behaviour". I understand that this would be: culture->vision->strategy->behaviuor. Then states that this structure has not changed for centuries, that's why we are in a meaning crisis. Is that correct @Mediocrates? Landry's explanation of the meaning crisis seems plausible to me, as does @Mediocrates' explanation. I do not have the arguments to support any of the claims now that a counterargument is in play. I am an average person in that matter, but I really want to learn, so any "material" or further discussion would be deeply appreciated. I do not think that technology changes functionality either, it just exacerbates it. @Mediocrates: "when the issue is who are "we" and what will we do. There is certainly much to be done by us" Totally agree.
The world is turning to giving hands.
To the three of you,
Be aware that the influence, kairotic earnestness and sheer dialogical (or trialogical in this case) quality and ethic of this conversation is affecting the world. I know because I am halfway around the other side of it from where I assume you are. Look at these comments. Trust not only in your own work but in the work that you do not know of, and know that many are aiming to serve a similar, if not identical, purpose. To Tolkenise...the beacon of Amon Dīn is lit, and hope is rekindled.
All this to say keep going, by God, keep going. And remember this is to all three of you.
Thank you, and much love,
Noah
Tim, you gracious hero
True Good and the Beautiful. Ethics ontology and epistemology. This conversation is very convergent, outstanding. Must be studied! Thank you John, Forrest, and Tim! Top 10 voices with Vervaeke!
Forrest Landry is a fucking mentat. It might take a couple days to reintegrate my reality after listening to that conversation. John and Forrest thank you so much. It's a beacon of hope knowing that there are minds of your calibers operating in this problem space.
Forrest is the smartest guy I've ever met. Or something bigger than that.
I'm forever grateful to Jim Rutt for introducing me to Forrest Landry on his podcast. This is the type of guy that you keep rewinding the same 5 minutes over and over again and then get a glimpse of some deep Truth.
@@filipo7703 Yes indeed! I have listened to the Jim Rutt conversations at least 10 times with countless rewinds while doing so. The wisdom of Forrest Landry, Jordan Hall, Zak Stein, and Daniel Schmachtenberger, and John Vervaeke, is a joy to behold. I search the internet daily for their words.
Great conversation, thank you. Profound. More conversations, please. :)
This might be the most important conversation that has happened in the 21st century, so far.
Agreed :) It seems like a pronounced marker of a new phase in the evolution of the meaning crisis response...
Agreed, absolutely shook me
100%
I’m here for it! 🔥🔥🔥
A few months ago, I noticed some similarities between the frameworks JV & FL use even though they were engineered to solve different problems. It's difficult to express how exciting it was to see them publicly engage in mapping across their linguistic domains 😆😆😆
Tim, mad props for being the conduit that afforded this phenomenal exchange; you have my gratitude 🙏
What a incredible talk, amazing how words in a conversation of two interlocutores can bring so much thought process in the void.
What an unbelievable conversation! It feels like this connected the threads of every effable and ineffable insight that I've heard to date on the meaning crisis and the shape of a solution in as concise and rigorous a way as possible. Please do this again
Thank you Tim, you provided a great service as facilitator during this conversation, normally as host I would thank the guests first but John has shared your podcast on his channel, thank you Forrest and John for a dialog that shows the other worlds that integrate seamlessly with similar interests, really good conversation.
Peace
The dynamic of this conversation fills my entire body with love and awe 🙏
This has struck me as a necessary beginning. Glad to have had this happen, and look forward to more.
Thanks Forrest, Tim and John!
Thanks Lee.
A congruence of architectures, gratefully received. 🙏
This is fantastic! Thanks Forrest and John. So exciting to see this process between you. Forrest: Effective Choice is a life tool kit. Blessings.
Thank you John and Forrest for this amazing conversation!
For those who didn’t read Forrest book yet, ‘’An Immanent Metaphysics’’
here is a quick overview that I made following one of the Jim Rutt Podcast that might be helpful:
Choice is transcendent.
Choice is part of a triplicate of the domain of what is Real:
In order to grasp what is real we need:
Choice, causation (omniscient), change (immanente)
In every domain that it is to know in order to cover the basis we always need three concepts.
Like in language you would need to know about :
Statement (immanent)
Syntax (omniscient)
Semantic ( transcendent because it goes beyond the domain of language, like pointing to a possibility as well)
(lEx: you would need statements, as they are the units of meaningfulness, so few of them (many instances) in order to even make syntax (to make one Class) and few classes to make semantic.
A soundness concept.
Perfected hard randomness and choice have the same sort of difference
as causality and determinism has.
Choice and causation are in fact duals to one another..
In other words, a symmetry between determinism and indeterminism.
Transcendent, omniscient and immanente.
Distinct, inseparable, non interchangeable.
Like in the concept of Universe if we would want to know all about it we would need to know about those 3 primal concepts:
Creation (transcendent)
Existence (omniscient)
Interaction (immanente)
When we want to talk about one of them we have to use the other 2 of the triplicates to describe one component.
Co-emergency.
Like co-emergency also in itself if we are to describe it, we needs the concept of process, and further, the concept of interaction)
The 3 modalities correspond to the axioms!
Because metaphysics explains itself and the one that is doing the metahysicing)
Because the pattern of relationship is the same between domains, isomorphism!
-Axiom 1 to omniscient, third person
-Axiom 2 to immanent , first hand experience
(therefore the observer is included, and the act of ‘’metaphysicing’’ describing itself….in other words, the process of being aware of the process itself.....powerful!)
-Axiom 3 transcendent, second person (basis of the mediation of axiom 1 and 2)
In this particular talk here some of the triples that have being used
Purpose
Value
Meaning
Vision
Strategy
Culture
Complexity
Clarity
Simplicity
Thank you Forrest, I always love your flow! And its lacing beauty...
Absolutely riveting, thank you all three ! I look forward to listening/watching again after I have had some hours to digest what I just experienced.
Excellent, thank you all
Powerful conversation. Would love to see a triad of sorts practiced with a balance of three voices; not just two. Grateful for the spiritual or subtle realm underpinning in all of this. Looking forward to many more listens. So much to take in! Thank you ❤️
Like so? ua-cam.com/video/8Es_WTEgZHE/v-deo.html
Awesome conversation! Thank you!
Reinventing indigenous spirituality (earth is sacred).
All those times I've said, "Oh, to be a fly on the wall..." Well, this is that wall, and I am a most fortunate fly.
Thanks Rachel.
I might work on the transcript for this.
Looking forward to this!
Amazing conversation!!
Missed this conversation on your channel, just caught it on Tim’s. I’ve appreciated many conversations you’ve shared but this tops them all (that I’ve watched, at least). In my work in the corporate setting I’ve taught and led some of your ideas around problem solving and some of Forrest’s (attempted, anyhow) around ephemeral group process. This conversation leaves me hungry to try to get a grip on Forrests more fundamental bases…axioms
This conversation needs to be atomized so more people can understand it. It’s too important to be intellectually out of reach.
33:33
44:44
55:55
1:11:11
1:22:22
Shift.
1:33:22
1:44:33
1:55:44
2:00:02
Shift
Suddenly just hit me, it's nice that Tim is present as a kind of representative / "stand in" for "the audience". Not so much for us as for you (John) and Forrest as a ... how do I want to out it, a third, a kind of passive counter balance for the dynamic of the conversation.
*somehow the idea of the communing and communicative act feels apt to what I was trying to express
You saw the same thing as me! Check my comment.
(Peterson would do well to have one of these present in his dialogues).
1:38:16 clarity of good questions.
This importance of understanding this point may not be understated.
Epistemological honesty and humility / "good faith" as a basis for relationship.
🙏There is a god 🙏
Glad to see this happen!
Question: What is meant by a CEO "putting strategy first" and later in the dialog, individuals "slipping into strategy-first habits"? Is that thoughts like "how to make money" or "how to gain notoriety" or "how to bring a product to market"?
That's how I understood it. Manipulating company culture and vision towards the end of more profit or production at the expense of the integrity of the whole system.
Am I right in my intuition that this is an evolved form of dialogos? It looks as if the third party in the conversation is a flow mediator, keeping salient the structure and input of the conversation. Whereas the other two parties are steeped in the content.
If you do the Net Joy Integral you don't have to consider $$. A comet strike is inevidable. Glaciers will melt and rivers dry up AND once the oceans heat up it's gonna rain and snow all of the time. Damn straight, Forrest!
A interesting topic I would love to see you guys go into. What it means to love Satan. Thats what comes to my mind when thinking about depth of our psyche and thinking.
It's interesting the way you need to get a bit of a discourse going just to point towards a definition of the "meaning crisis" at the beginning.
This conversation stays on my mind.
I have questions.
I will use at first the triplicate of vision, strategy and culture to help figure out what I am understanding or missing.
Would it be right to say that Forrest’s metaphysics tool kit, so well used in that particular conversation, is also the equivalent of the three modalities in the descriptive realm?
But depending on when, to whom, and how it is used it can be one or the other (or none?) in a given context?
In the embodied realm the book the immanent metaphysics, or the tool kit as you express it
is it more akin to a strategy (omniscient) when used as such a tool of re-factoring for other bodies of work?
I see the tool kit in that conversation as a movement or pivotal point from Forrest Subjective to the world (objective).
What is the equivalent of the vision preceding the sharing of the tool kit?
What was the vision before the creation of the Immanent Metaphysics?
I am curious of the inner space, or the practice that helped you to bring that out to the world.
I am also curious what culture or emergent qualities within this present one you see that would be necessary for the Immanent Metaphysics to be embodied on a larger scale?
Would it be right to see for example, because I remember Forrest being influenced in a way by Charles Sanders Pierce, that this influence became the axiom 1 or the immanent modality of Forrest, and he made it moves through axiom 2, his omniscient and out in the world. axiom 3 as it transcend just the relationship to the world and enter the subjectivity of someone else…
and that this influence Forrest has, for example, to John is becoming potentially John’s immanent?
I had the impression I understood, at least in a basic way, the movement throughout domains of learning or description of the world, but I never thought about the rotations of the axioms from people to people.
And especially when those people are also the creators of theories that are flowing into one another.
It feels very fractal-ish! :)
I see here how the tool kit is being helpful. Another question: as it seems these days that everything, even kindness, can be weaponized, I wonder how this tool kit could be used in a negative way?
I am trying to think of a specific situation that would be the case and can’t find it yet.
Is it possible that when used in a negative way it becomes a none-modality? Is it even possible to have something external to that frame of triplicate?
I am sorry if it is such a mess in my sharing. I am not an intellectual. I am certainly an enthusiast though. And when I listen and think with the notions that you intellectuals are sharing it brings a sense of both relief (parasympathetic) and expansion and stimulation (sympathetic) in my body-mind that is quite pleasurable.
Thank you.
All I can say is, wow.
The bit about false testimony reminded me of Jian Gomeshi: one person swore out a complaint, then three others, then the trial for the complaints of the three others wherein falsification was found, *then* the first complainant withdrew their complaint. Very curious sequence of events.
Oops; that's close enough to "conspiracy" to get me expelled.
Run this shit back, yall need to talk again
I would love to see David Rug, potentially Jordan Hall, as additional interlocutors for this "Imminent" Metaphysical Dialogos....
Maybe there could be another next year..
He couldn’t have said “In participation in being there” at a more perfect time in a more perfect context!🤣
@Shi Opps (from chat) I meant flight or fight...but also fright. Also, it's 'Jenga...je...je...je...jenga' (three not two). He he...SIA!
Truth is a stasis of relationship.
(UA-cam vanished my comment after I tried to edit it…. So this is a repost)You know the one problem with your project really is as JP2 said, without a tradition and structured spaces it can easily just eat itself and fragment. Because if we all just make our own meaning instead of inheriting a tradition and working through it… there’s nothing to prevent someone charismatic from coming in and just flipping everything on it’s head just because they are better at bullshiting and salience field manipulation.
So for me, going through all the lessons you teach really just ended up pointing me to Christianity. Not that it had to be Christianity because I certainly can attest to the depth of Daoism, but because I am a human being so I can’t just float above the world picking and choosing between what I like to make a religious cocktail… I need to seek the truth from where I am at.
Sincerely, was atheist until I came across you and Jonathan.
The lies don't bother you? I'm from christianity; i want to fix it.
I have to say there seems like a much higher chance of manipulation through tradition. Theres quite a long history of charismatic manipulation in traditional religion. I think one of the big concerns people have with tradition is that it can often excuse people from critical, analytical thinking.
@@mediocrates3416 You personally want to 'fix' Christianity? Oh the arrogance, the cluelessness...
@@mediocrates3416 define the words: lies, Christianity and fix? There’s so much history and diversity in Christianity that it’s difficult to really interpret your meaning. If you mean in terms of the extent that the present day church has strayed from the original intent and meaning of Christianity then I can get on board with that, especially as growing up I certainly did not find the level of meaning in Christianity that I did after discovering JP, JP2, PVK, and JV.
@@shamanic_nostalgia I disagree, without a tradition whoever is the most charismatic wins, because without a tradition there’s not not much a strong standard that has authority to compare to.
With a long standing tradition the best a charismatic manipulative person can hope for is that the people in the present day don’t really understand the traditions… so there may be times where the church is corrupt and people can take advantage… but because theres an actual tradition, the next generation can always recover the tradition by ignoring any deviant manipulation that has occurred present day by going into tradition and reflecting on in what way current leadership has strayed from a reasonable interpretation. With 2000 years of Christianity and another 2000 years of
Judaism for the Old Testament… there’s not really going to be any “creativity”…. Anything people might highly debate has been debated 2000-4000 years… so the extent you can be fooled by people with bad intentions to a large extent depends on how well you understand the full history and development of your tradition.
I don't get what Forrest means about axiom 1 and axiom 2 relationships, I don't even know what that is. Is he referring to the first three axioms of probability or something entirely different? Also at 2:11:00, "reification of the first order, and of the second and the third". If someone can explain this to me, I'd appreciate that.
Forrest has written a lot! I figure in there somewhere he's stated his axioms, apparently wrt his triads which seem to be objective/subjective/whole, or something like that. ... Maybe someone will correct me *and* explain reification? .... ? Ima guess later, for kicks😁😂
Forrest is referring to Axiom 1 and Axiom 2 in his work "An Immanent Metaphysics". I've got a link to it here on hand: www.magic-flight.com/pub/uvsm_1/idm_foundations_01.pdf
It takes some time to familiarize with, but I'll try an (simplified!) introduction:
*Axiom 1 makes the case that the Immanent modality is more fundamental than the Omniscient and/or the Transcendent. An example would be Vervaeke's term Transjective, conveying the idea that the relationship between subjective and objective is more fundamental than either subjective or objective.
*Axiom 2 describes a kind of rotation between the modalities, how one modality flows into one other. In Forrest's words, understanding Axiom 2 might be the hardest part of the metaphysics, but is (in my view) the utmost profound one. The richest examples are found in the manuscript, particularly in the part on Choice, Change, and Causation.
I won't go into more detail, because I'll likely propagate misunderstandings. I'm doing my own reading of the work myself, working out the meanings of the axioms. It's not worth doing the modalities here, reading the manuscript should be the way to go if it interests you.
@@Awenevis1 Thanks very much
It all feels very inaccessible to me. I’m not brilliant, but I’m not dumb, and I just can’t follow most of this.
Quick query for anyone, how do epistemology, ontology and metaphysics fit together, i can’t get my head around the distinction or the need for all of them, any 2 would seem sufficient…
The relationship between Epistemology (potential of knowledge) and ontology (structure of reality) and ethics were discussed around 1:26. I believe these three comprise a complete metaphysics. Epistemology and ethics are conjugate and, when balanced, increase and evolve ontology.
Thanks!
Trust is a proxy for clarity.
"...Tim moderates and affords the discussion." I'll be back when I figure out "affords"
Ok, my Webster's college dictionary has a Fourth meaning of afford: to give, to confer upon: "to afford great pleasure to someone." That is an OLD English usage that may be like "bespoke" that is used to describe measurements for "fancy goods" like British fancy folks of the Upper Classes. Like a Montreal attempt to turn "dope" into meaning something "cool" and special in the Afro-Canadian community, another "influencer" trying to change meanings of words for class distinction. "Intellectual ice cream castles in the air" (Joni Mitchell) are a sort of classism, and dear John, when you go as far as "Eidetic eduction," you have gone beyond what "any major dude will tell you" Steely Dan euphemisms that mere mortals can observe and educe any meaning? Like(?), eh? IDK (I Don't Know)
see Gibson
❤️
Hate is like antifragile.
Fragile, robust, antifragile.
Love, apathy, hate.
Math models reality more than reality models math.
If you hate the haters are you hateful?
Women are like sports cars, they keep getting prettier, better, and faster.
Don't aspire to be a leader, aspire to be the difference between good enough and amazing.
If I am remembered at all, it will be through misattribution.
Inspiration has limited application.
I am tired of the optimists prancing around like giddy teenagers while everything burns.
I am tired of “phrases of effect” without rigor and positive prescriptions with results.
"Conatus": stability (does stability include "homeostasis"? ... it better😂👍). In the case of consciousness; the reproductive continuity of the driving function. Reference Jordan Peterson's "lobster tank" stuff: depression changes the driving function... Does depression affect memory? I'm thinking it should.
Forgive me - perhaps I just lack the intelligence necessary to appreciate this discussion... (and I mean that sincerely)
Honestly - there was little to nothing of the 'spirit' (if I may call it) of "dialogos" here - and so much was expressed with a meta-language (from Landry) that I found almost(?) incomprehensible....
Upon reflection there was for me no intuitive resonance like, "Ah! that is true to life!" Instead (again, I realize subjectively, 'to me') it was sterile and technical (except for John's attempts to respond - which always seem to be reaching to bring the conversation back to the beautiful, transcendent mystery that Reality is).
Full disclosure - I had to stop after an hour and 35 minutes... perhaps I gave up too soon?
No; you're correct in your assesment. I watch the whole thing, you didn't miss anything. More different language won't help; fixing the original errors is what needs doing.
Due to lack of time I've not been able to watch the whole video yet, I am at 1:20h. However, I find Landry's refactoring useful in that it clarifies some of John's explanations. I feel that they provide a model that is easier to structure. As you say, John's language adds the "transcendent mystery that Reality is". That might be because he has worked on that from a philosophical and cog psych and because John has more experience explaining this topics to other people (he is a professor at the university, teaches mindfulness, has youtube videos reaching "average" people, ...). However, I wouldn't dismiss Landry's intervention just for the language and lack of intuitive resonance during the first attempt to watch the video. Indeed, the first triad of strategy, culture and vision hit hard on me.
@@vicaba02
Thanks for this.
Could you, even if ever so briefly, expound on precisely how the first triad "hit hard" on you?
Thanks again!
@@vicaba02 Landry has some cool metaphysics, to be sure: respect! I disagree with his charaterization of the dynamical triad you reference: imo, our culture's strategy uses vision to guide behaviour; the essential functionality does not change as technology adds more items. Our culture hasn't changed in a spiritual sense for centuries; hence the meaning crisis. It's like the easy and hard problems of consciousness; the easy problem is hard cuz so many details and the hard problem is easy cuz it's just a matter of recognition. They're baffling the average person with details when the issue is who are "we" and what will we do. There is certainly much to be done by *us* .
Sovereign Love, What "hit hard" on me was that I found the meaning crisis, or at least part of it, well clarified by the triad culture, vision and strategy in that strategy (purpose) has taken a fundamental position in meaning-making and that culture should be in the fundamental position instead. I understand that what Landry is saying is that *now*, a strategy more centered on the individual or group of individuals is generating a vision that is not taking into account the whole reality (and instead the interests of the smaller group) and then creating a culture around it ("adding" people with the same vision). I would go like: strategy->vision->culture
However, @Mediocrates says that disagrees with that formulation and that "our culture's strategy uses vision to guide behaviour". I understand that this would be: culture->vision->strategy->behaviuor. Then states that this structure has not changed for centuries, that's why we are in a meaning crisis. Is that correct @Mediocrates? Landry's explanation of the meaning crisis seems plausible to me, as does @Mediocrates' explanation. I do not have the arguments to support any of the claims now that a counterargument is in play. I am an average person in that matter, but I really want to learn, so any "material" or further discussion would be deeply appreciated.
I do not think that technology changes functionality either, it just exacerbates it.
@Mediocrates: "when the issue is who are "we" and what will we do. There is certainly much to be done by us" Totally agree.
I could help you to gain insight into these questions @ 1:49:50 until around 1:51
Progress.
Yes but how do you stop dangerous people in high places from doing stupid things.
cynically, you price in, by measure or by approximation, the cost of all externalities.
@@LKRaider In other words, you don't? I'd suggest: by containment; legislation and structure.
Tour de force.
BOUND TRIPLES?....ARMS RACE....?