วีดีโอ

Ok I think I get what you two are talking about..after some earlier hesitation and😂 resistance 😇✨️

Thanks for having and sharing this conversation 🙏. I wonder if either of you have come across Cynthia Bourgeault's work, particularly on the Trinity, which describes within a larger (Gurdjieffian) framework how the trinity is continually participating in the creative unfolding of reality. Would be interested in your thoughts on it, it seems to me quite similar to how you're describing the trinity's ongoing and complexifying involvement in creation Jordan. And she speaks directly to that concern you talked about at the end Brendan, of the wobbles that can ripple out from a distortion in the source code/map, how that can self-correct if we understand the trinity within this larger framework she describes.

I think it was Spinoza saying, that everyone only has as much right as he has might. How much better we would live if it were the opposite. People will always stick to power, the majority is what they want to be a part of. To speak truth and therefor being attacked by others is not the most common characteristic of men. H. Kueng once stated, when asked about the witches being burnt by Protestants and Catholic Church in the M. Ages, that they all knew its not jesuanic. Yet they took joy to be on the side of the powerful and part of the (evil) majority. Then even killing innocent is ok. I am not a follower of Hobbes and Schopenhauer. Yet any questions on the brains of humans?😢

I loved it❤. Two things in special. Thomas read H. Kueng, a man that has more relgious and philosophical power than most of what I experience on TH-cam, including B. Ehrman. Also the matter of certainty. Its not on the offer Thomas stated rightlx. If only 250 years after Kant and Humes people would get that one fact. There is no certainty!! The other person might be right😮 It seems most Christians always know better. Their ego is not strong enough to endure reality, they rather live their little lies and impose it on others. The less they know the more certain they are (B. Russel thought this to be one of the biggest problems for humanity). Good luck within the 30.000 different kind of Christianities🎉😂

@10:26 This is, in fact, the modernist position that he is attributing to the pre-modern thinkers. The pre-modern thinkers started with the senses, especially Aristotle. Descartes, arguably the first modern philosopher, was the one who advocated starting from non-sensory 'data'. Kant elaborated this to the point that all sensory data, the world of things, was unknowable. This is why meta-modernism will go nowhere. It perpetuates the errors of both modernism and post-modernism while purporting to be something new. The Moscow-Tartu and Peircean schools of semiotics have done a lot of important research on this subject but the so-called meta-modernists are apparently completely unaware, still drowning in a pool of hyper-modern solipsism and historical ignorance.

To the best of my knowledge, the pre-modern Aristotelian tradition does not start with the divine and derive everything from that. Maybe what the professor says applies more to the Platonic strand of thought. In demonstrating by reason that God exists, Aquinas starts from the natural world.

Thank you for presenting this information

Thank you for posting this interview with Dr. Hicks, who certainly ranks among the top scholars in the realm of critique of postmodernism.

Y'all might like to have a look at Senua, a goddess worshipped in England until beaten out of history circa 3-4th C, forgotten til uncovered in Ashwell 2002. She filled my imagination: in a more reflexive-processing timeline, could the British have exported a more right-brained sensitivity? As IIIΞ recreate the State every moment; Birth anew IIIΞIIIΞ?

I like the content but HATE the music, its kind of making this video… postmodern.

HIGHLY recommend this for everyone! I spent a week at Sky Meadow a few months ago and it was an incredible experience. Absolutely magical. ❤

Great conversation lads.

This conversation is calling to mind the book The Alphabet and the Goddess

Whilst obv it's up to Brendan who he invites, I looked to see if there was an equivalent figure from the pro-postmodernist side and I didn't really see that. Just something I noticed.

Great video, but I think the term metamodernism is being used more out of a desire to assign a new literary movement than an awareness of a new literary movement emerging. Does metamoderninsm differ from postmodernism in any of it's mechanics(I am speaking specifically with regard to literature)? I don't think having a positive instead of negative message is enough to justify a new movement, especially when many postmodern works are aware of there own severity and will occassionally admit some kind of sincerity. I fail to see how Pynchon(postmodern) differs categorically from DFW(metamodern). If we are in this new movement, it must be in the really early stages. I understand that Joyce and Nabakov are authors that define the passing of the baton from modernism to postmodernism, and so the distinction between those two types of literature is murky with them. Is there some more overtly metamodern works that have come out since Infinite Jest?

Beautiful

I think the bottom line for metamodern Christianity is the group of principles attributed to Christ. There is good reason to acknowledge the debt of Christianity to earlier belief systems but time and literature have managed to crystallise these principles in the modern mind. So what should we whittle the literature about Christ down to so that we extract the gold from the dross? I’m assuming the doctrine surrounding Christ is the dross. Let’s adopt ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ and abandon the ‘lake of fire’. Let’s agree to be meek and hope to inherit the earth? Maybe not! Let’s kumbaya in metamodern Christian communities or go the way of Nietzsche’s lonely uberman. I guess even Parzival was a lonely soul as he refined his soul along the road less travelled. Metamodern Christianity is open to much criticism as it ‘pretends’ to supersede the literature and liturgy of its mainstream predecessor. Some might like it as ‘the religion without religion’ and I think this concept of believers bonding around an idea that rejects bonding is where the concept falls down. Anyway, I’m going to keep my eye on this new Christianity and see what develops.

50 minutes in and there's no meat. No there there (if we're going to invoke the Budda). Science is mentioned, but not demonstrated: only motivated reasoning, circular justification, and hopeful hypothesis. Does the book have any answers? 1:10 in and still nothing. 1:20 - It's inter-subjectivity and concilience. 1:25 - deepity, deepity, deepity. I tried but I'm done. Perhaps the 20% of the people that better understand quantum physics dislike the book? How about somebody who understands Godel? It's not the limiter you think it is. You know those truths you think you can't reach? Choose another set of axioms and increase the coverage of the truth space. Mathematicians do this all the time - even with just arithmetic. They've accepted incompleteness and moved on. No metaphysics required. (Plus it only applies to formal systems)

"Nothing actually touches; that's what touch-is."

What i feel intuitively, for what its worth, is that one of the most important takeaways from Godel theories is that: ultimately logic and reason are, and can only ever be, fundamentally based on intuitions which we have elivated to the stutus of axioms. These assumptions must just be taken as true to get any system of logic up and running, they can never be proven true within the same system, and any other system that can prove the truth of our axioms will need to be based off a new set of assumptions that then we cant prove without... ad infinitum. On the other side, with regards to empiricism and the scientific method. When for starters, we only ever can have access to our own subjetive world, one might question whether we can truly say anything about things in themselves. And then when we get down to the boundaries between where one thing ends and another begins, only to discover that there are no ferm borders between objects, substance based ontology is bankrup, and stacks of complex processes in which we can choose what to define individual at whatever scale we happen to be looking. Again, we are pushed back to intuition on which we are left to ground our decisions. This isnt by any means to say we should get rid of science and rationality, or that they arnt extreamy useful epistemic tools for gaining real knowlage. They are! And intuitions aswell should be viewed as capable, especially in conjunction with these other ways of knowing.

I felt like a dilettante until I discovered Neil and the Golden Thread. Now I still feel like a dilettante while knowing that I am a polymath.

I'm a refugee from Catholicism with no spiritual home, but over these 20 odd years have manged to build a hermitage of my own, and forgo community. I imagine if something like Arethion had been around then it may have been a great help. I am glad to see it pop up now as it will fill quite a large void as more and more Christians grow disillusioned with that life, but won't leave unless they have a place to land. But I am curious, where did the term Arethion come from? Is it a made-up word? I don't think I heard that in the discussion.

Wow, I so appreciate the depth of you and Zak’s understanding in these areas. Thank you Brendan. I would love to see more between you two on these topics. And here’s to the absolutely necessary dream of these ideas giving birth to post postmodern institutions that teach folks to live their sacred vocation! 🙏🏼

I'd just got home from Wushu training, which has a central tenet of supernatural, like music, art, those things are supernatural. Mr Freke should try some Wushu training and expand his horizons. And his explanation on the oneness of consciousness is a basic of Buddhist culture, no?

I think the pivot in the 90"s was the arrest of John Gotti, as depicted in Godfather 2

yass! my conclusion is right! thank you for uploading this video!! God bless you!! 🎉

I think Vervaeke might agree. I'm pretty sure I've heard him praise Iamblichus for this exact reason. I think he's also said that the Christian neoplatonists tended to be less "disgusted" than their ancient pagan predecessors, which is why he often prefers people like Boethius over Plotinus. That's my impression of him anyway!

Wonderfull.. Sir Penrose C3 cones resonated along with electron coupling. Tree of light . Pau D Arco , 4 electrons in the valence. There has to be some form of biological matrixical chirality aligned with the axial homeostasis of the great round, as if on the conformal boundaries. I question the sacred woth bio phyics, photasmically speaking. Such clarity Brendan to the intuition of my pixelated truths from the dark night that has last over a decade.... The cup of which you drink is the quenching to my soul's thirst for air and water in the light of knowledge So many thanks

Decadence of the wooing young witch's trinkets faded like dew in the dissolution of dopamine currency, integral of instinct under the fig of time where the wavering wake of Nietzsche comes to center- mechanized to degree of suffering. And may the pleasure of destruction to idolatry sway in the transformative light of dissolution. So much I can learn from your realized journey, knowledge and quest!!!?

This is a great conversation! You guys really hit it off and obviously resonate with each other and it helps parse out these ideas.

This is summed it on my Omniversal Cycle concept.

You should read a couple of books by Tim Freke and Peter Gandy: "The Jesus Mysteries" and "Jesus and the Lost Goddess." The early Christians understood Jesus as an allegorical myth and when a literalist interpretation of the myths arose later, Rome decided to sanction the literal version and suppress the original.

Jesus was an allegorical myth.

Loving others by prioritizing helping others take their next best step of growth is the ultimate meaning in life, the essence of our Creator and Savior through us.

Jonathan Pageau Enlightenment Ideals Aren't Working th-cam.com/video/q0Vu7YJueRY/w-d-xo.html

The metaphysical foundations of reality, form and matter, essence and existence, have never been refuted and demonstrate the existence of the necessarily existing infinite and transcendent. Why the cosmos is intelligible. Modern science arose from Christian culture. the "head of a pin" trope is very insulting to some of the best minds ever like Aquinas .

Did Professor Hicks grow up in a Protestant culture or family? As St Thomas Aquinas said , if something is against reason it is not from God. God is BEING.. We are finite being. And its demonstrable by reason alone as Professors Ed Feser and Peter Kreeft show. The Bishop of Lincoln was the first to articulate the scientific method in the 1200's; Grosstestes. th-cam.com/video/UaSSSst3JBo/w-d-xo.html

Western philosophical realism arose with Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. It is premised in reality and reason. Its still where sanity has a home. th-cam.com/video/MozdG1-dFlo/w-d-xo.html

Thoroughly enjoyed this. Particularly appreciate watching, what I judge to be, an honest and earnest enquiry between two great thinkers - the following of intuitions (or the "lure", perhaps) - the conversation is relational emergence in action. Brendan, there's a great humility in your willingness to broaden your horizons (and your "hang ups" as you say!). Again, a model of emergent enquiry.

PART 2 PLEASE ❤🙏☯️

This was brilliant, Brendan. Thank you for holding and sharing space.

- [ ] Easier to conceive is an afterlife domain of technology built by intergalactic civilizations seeking immortality. Inevitable fights for resources is solved by agreeing to a unity mind Godhead in which fractalized selves with free will balance complexity and entropy and enforcing a Law against destruction by any subgroup. The universe is rebuilt with this core technology and ascension path.

- [ ] Easier to conceive is an afterlife domain of technology built by intergalactic civilizations seeking immortality. Inevitable fights for resources is solved by agreeing to a unity mind Godhead in which fractalized selves with free will balance complexity and entropy and enforcing a Law against destruction by any subgroup. The universe is rebuilt with this core technology and ascension path.

Thank you both for this talk.

Thank you, for a particularly great episode. "everything is relationship" "all is process" Vipassana has led me to the exact same conclusions. It's always bolstering to hear folks *way* smarter than me stumbling upon similar axioms. 🌿🙏🌿

Wonderful conversation!

I like the direction Tim's thinking has gone in. Still sounds like "panexperientialism" to me (ie, it is not consciousness that goes all the way down, but some more basal form of subjectivity). I especially appreciate his willingness to hold out for some form of post-mortem persistence of psyche. His view sounds a lot like Teilhard's. We gotta get Brendan over his hang ups! Up the dose!