Unbelievable and absolutely too wonderful for words! Bruce Alderman where the hell have you been for my entire academic existence? I am going to be listening to this one very, very many times. What a trip. Thank the transcendental naturalist post-metaphysical God of the dark seeds in the Yin and the Yang and the multipolar convergence for this conversation, the internet, the ontological stack, and for the axial revolution, and many other things. This is GOLD!!!
27:07 I've had this weird little thought bothering me lately where I consider whether I would rather be Ram Dass's Rick Rubin or Rick Rubin's Ram Dass that just came to mind here. Maybe that will mean something to somebody.
This use of language... Does it help anyone make life more simple and elegant? It sounds to me like the speakers may be chasing complexity and verbose language at the expense of clear meaning and practicality.
Not really; by using precise, technical language they can compact a long string of ideas and concepts into sentences instead of pages of text. Although I am not in their fields so I do have to sometimes go refresh my memory and look up the terms 😅
I agree. The problem is that taking this insight and making it simple is really bloomin' hard and so the degree to which I can critique it as complicated is the degree to which I need to put my money where my mouth is and do the simplifying myself! I can't and so I don't critique it as is. If you can, please do! You're right! We need it simpler!
@@benhennessy-garside2302 amen, people who are able to do this are never listened to because people like this get lost in their own ideas and everything moves at a snail’s pace. I tried to reach out to people like this to propose some insight but they won’t even give you 5 minutes. It’s like they act like celebrities who have no time to hear out someone outside their club.
What a hopefull, inspiring and amplifing experimce to listen in on. And the point about narrative, art and artictic endouver have emergied and reawakened this one to continue to build a bridge between meaning and philosophy as an Enacted exploration of serious play whintin creative writing from a aphofatic flow of the cohenrence of flow. 🎉
Considering a more ...meaningful, truthful, and useful.... embrace of the ...historical, philosophical and sciento-technological.... narratives with an integrally greater conscience coming forth and going forward.
amazing dialogue. raw, high octane stuff. i wonder how this information gets digested at different scales of semantic sophistication and percepttual heirarchy?
You're right, its too dense to be chewed by anyone but the strongest biters, but they are missing the simplicity. I wrote a poem, that captures some of my model, re truth and false belief: Truth is not a bitter pill to swallow Only poison's bitter, you can trust your tongue The truth will set you free just feel and follow Spit out that bile you're fed when you were young Grow up, don't cry, the truth hurts, says the bully The world is cold and hard for all of time A belief you know that hurts him deep and fully But you know it can't be true, it doesn't rhyme!
Gregg's summary of transcendent naturalism, where 4 interrelated components at the broad level are I think: 1. a layered ontology which needs to be considered in relationship to 2. a conformist theory of knowledge, where there's a framing of our cognitive, epistemic apparatus to the layered ontology of Nature, to create a conformist structure and here's where I'm confused, if the third is 3. the transjective, where the conformist structure needs to be understood as transjective, or 3. the reframing with the transjective into extended naturalism, and then that situated in 4. kairotic (? spelling) moment that affords a collective transcendence as collective meaning and awareness leap for the individual, all that bound up as number four. my simplistic interpretation: 1. intelligibility of layered ontology assuages emotional need of collective, allowing a coupling arrangement of marriage where emotional need of one is answered by rationalization from the other, withdrawing that from the environment. The forming of groups then couples in groups which leads to 2. increased efficiency which produces a human mediated knowledge pool which is separated by media and coupled with care back to Nature, where the 3. transjective, where the knowledge is 4. shared with the non-human, where a triangle object of human marriage preserves binary coupling for context realizations, where this is lost in a regular couple marriage by one side's estrangement from intelligibility in the environment, since that possibility is removed by neo-business need for efficiency. That unanswered need of the other partner moving into the group, and that subsumed into the neo-political, which itself has lost the range of movement in the positive and negative freedom sets that each liberal and conservative group are supposed to contain while favoring one or the other, in context so people adjust to that as a collective response. This triangle works by a) allowing complexity of binary couplings for relevance b) encouraging passing of knowledge from older to younger c) keeping things at the local level which is more efficient, and having more resources for more freedom of that kind to re-connect to meaning in the environment, as in Bildung. One fix anyway, thanks again.
@projectmalus Sincerely, thank you for the summary! Chairotic I believe is the correct spelling. And now... Sarcastically: wow! Layman's terms, finally! 🤣🤣 Seriously, good notes! It makes looking up all the terms again and referencing back to the video for a deeper dive MUCH easier! 🫡
@@LatverianBuffoon Thanks, I thought I could have done much better and have been meaning to add that and a compilation of quotes from the series. In any case (going free form a bit here) if a person has intent, actions and attitude then it seems like persona and actions. A question might be, why zombies? Haven't read John et al's book...zombies when a variety of perceptions is reduced and actions are left intact, I'm guessing. Two world mythology as a person on one level instead of two, how ? Loss of dimension with that as virtuous higher guiding compromise on lower, which is only an observation. Two world is where the bad procedural and propositional match can be seen. Take the three leaps, and replace one with a "third attractor" which makes a two step (for the person) since it polarizes the other two leaps as a set. This becomes the one level where objects are positioned in power and need games, often objectifying time - and thus your response to that - to do so. The permissions for that goes back to the zombies, and why they gave up their autonomy, how it happened, how it happens, the actors and the scapegoats. Have a great day and thanks for the reply.
@@LatverianBuffoon Still going free form: seeing a different way, where the 4 P's are like this - - - - and the three leaps are the spaces between. How does that translate between that person and the world? A completely statistical view can be had, and is the best imo. Each humanoid species in the galaxy might have this same test, where they take up something common in their environment which they aren't adapted to, and thru cleverness and happenstance use this to propel the species into higher cognition, while posing a gate which must be passed thru. Having the basic equipment and more time to observe intelligence in the world (and act upon it) where the gate is the power of that and the efficiency of production and consumption. So a person can see this statistically as significant, witness the Sea Peoples as first they bring the stuff, then the drugs, then the weapons. For a personal view, consider 7 (or so) effects on the person from consuming the grass family, as a non-ruminant, where that stuff is made 'mostly' better and permissions given. In their personal system, the objects have a few which are more affected, but the form of humans is similar. Objects like kidneys but also endochrine system perhaps, and self positioned between object brain and object liver for instance, and also those objects having a correspondence in objects of the world system so self moves out. Point is that a person can see their weak spot(s) and see how it flavors or colors them. Also, grass has many forms and a single intent, and humans have many opinions/perceptions and similar form. Can you see how zombie is when similar form and perception, and actions restrained in terms of level, and misplaced power assumptions as in, who is more powerful and what place does knowledge have there, where humor might be higher in understanding knowledge. where humor is a drug that vibrates as misunderstood action combined with terror. Back to the two freedoms at that point, and seeing who has power for change in society, who is closer to the knife edge.
@@LatverianBuffoon comment number 3 or 4, another peek at the statistical as virtuous level above compromise. Take that 4 P's again as - - - - with the three leaps between along with self. What's above this? If allow and assert are actions, as 2 where 2^1 moves as exponent series, where origin is like the first black hole created as the first sun built around that, becoming many suns etc as still the same object in different ages of that, that we see. This vertical spinning shaft emanates outward as increasingly wider still vertically orientated pipe, the series where one must run faster out on the perimeter to catch up. Life and the eternal object as a shear pin meant to break, the one inside the shaft and the many as intelligible, connecting the vertical as the horizontal, and humans at the 45 degree, perhaps at that groove where the snapping needs to happen, when something moves back from the future as powerful. Space between the "pipes". 2^2 as lower life, humans as 2^3 which is 8, so 7 is between the 4 P's as 2^2, and the dodecahedron as 2^5 interaction set possibilities, where the exponents allow moving between origin and perimeter.
The bromance is lovely fellas but what happened to the "we are comprehensively prone to self-deception?" With all due respect to the sincerity of your efforts, like the vast majority of well educated people are you 'unwittingly' addicted to the feeling of the abstract being real, that underpins our communication biased consciousness? That sense-of-knowing we all adapt to during our early-life behavioral adaptation to speaking our mother’s tongue and beginning the development of our rhetoric-is-reality, delusion of consciousness. Does 'imminent' transcendence involve a move from the symbolic-cognition of knowing, to noticing the entwined truths and falsehoods inherent in every sight associated word you possibly imagine within the 'imaginal-realm' we commonly use the reality-labeling word 'mind' to imaginatively define? Is an 'epiphany' creating way of feeling imminent transcendence, noticing 'how' you can name the objects clearly seen in the environment all four men occupy, with any 'other' descriptive words you possibly imagine without altering the 'reality' of the objects or what your 'eyes' are actually seeing? Is this why the Ascension philosopher from Nazareth said "they seeing, see not, hearing, hear not, and neither do they understand?" And is this a timeless truth about the perceptual-pretense involved in creating the 'religio' (binding) sense of a consensus-reality and the conscious sense-of-certainty required to overcome our existential anxiety about the inherent uncertainty, involved in the reality of being-in-time?
I’m wondering if you are familiar with Ken wheeler and his crowd. He claims to know ancient pali / Buddhism etc. I used to watch some of his magnet images/ ferrocell etc. he’s off the wall but who isn’t
I know two of the fellows well - Bruce and Layman. That said, this conversation feels way overly abstract; it was practically crying out to God for practical examples the listener might employ. I'm just not so sure that theology is in that much trouble; I look out and see a vibrant landscape of practice that - without a whole lot of overly self-conscious reimagining - has in a poly kind of way seeped into the lives of those who practice. In many ways, it's already being done by those on the ground. In any case, I wish this group had stuck to a teaching rule I like to use: For every abstract reflection, then name why it matters and what difference it would make. Tell it to me like I was five.
Yeah, I hear you, Mark. Have you watched the rest of the series up to this point? You'll see if you listen to the first 4 videos in that series that John lays out a several-hours-long case for why we need an 'extended naturalism,' why we need to admit a leveled ontology, why levels of knowing will accompany those levels of being, why we should adopt a 'conformity' epistemology (rather than a representational or correspondence one), why there is room for 'strong transcendence,' why we need to admit both bottom up and top down causation (emergence and emanation), why we need a transjective account that transcends subject-object dualism, why we need to be able to take 'the sacred' seriously again, and so on. He's explicitly mirroring certain neo-Platonic / Plotinusian models, which also influenced Ken's account, as well as some Eastern ones (like Zen), but he's providing some new scientific and philosophical grounds for a number of the pieces. It's a highly abstract and nuanced presentation that is delivered over 5 or 6 hours, all told. And Bruce and Layman were asked to respond to that. It was a challenge to try to respond to all of it in the short time they had, so yeah, they had to choose between comprehensiveness & density, or a more accessible but also much thinner surface response.
At 4:40 if you are only going to define IPS once, "because it's a bit of a mouthful", then at least annunciate clearly so that it is not an auditory smudge of jargon.
Yeah, a bit of a stumble there, but it wasn't the only time the full name was mentioned. Why so many unfriendly comments in the YT comment sections, and so little convivial, good spirited exchange?
Resolutions like these leave me wondering (worrying?) about the division of labor. How does this proposal land with you, John et al.: You are all more often stronger theorists and argumentors/dialecticians than actors/organizers (sometimes 'too universally minded to be of relative good,' although of course you are closer to binding the two in harmony than all the other theorists - which is why I'm even making this proposal to you, and arguably why others are doing the same as me by devoting their regular attention). If the next Buddha is the Sangha, perhaps devote the energy you all have left to the part you can play the best in the larger whole (as pioneers of the next system of justification), and pass off the action/organizing to organizers who can take the power of your would-be growing theoretical consensus (aim more for affording *this* for actors/organizers) as justification that they can *merely point to* in order to clear the way of opposition for their manner of organizing. I would rather see you all spend more time chewing into the agora, challenging and wrestling with the dominant *theorists* (not *just* theories - for better or worse, public intellectuals play an important dramatic cultural-developmental role right now, and virtue is sorely missing in these dramatic 'debate' events - consider participating more in this public ritual, with the possibility of transmuting it from the inside-out), and merely promoting the visibility of, and midwifing, good actors/organizers (e.g. Rafe Kelley).
Mmm, I have no way of telling my kids, what exactly was said. The academy doesn’t have art, it has copy. Gestalt is a lost wallet, searching madly for friends.
So true, but they are not lost entirely, just fragmented, and still confused enough to not see the whole picture, and thus can never explain it to a child. The truth is so simple, academic words may be precise but also fragmentary.
I have a friend who is also working on a minimal metaphysics to explain reality…problem is that he is so engrossed in physicalist priors that his conception of the real will lead him in a circular way to the same old materialist metaphysics that produces all the Gordian knot problems ( ala Tim Eastman ) that we need to break away from. Without acknowledgement of the sacred, theology, and the non propositional his project is doomed at inception. You probably all know this friend of mine…he has a podcast a number of you have appears on.
Philosophy of Science. An interest in Methodology and Epistemology and the life sciences are necessary to understand what he is talking about. He is saying he dislikes Naturalism and wants it replaced with pretty woo woo (because it feels so nice and fits his religious and spiritual woo woo). Luckily science pretty much rejects this philosophical mumbo jumbo that offers NOTHING material or helpful.
You can not be complete until you can integrate both which seem to be true but cannot both be true at the same time. You can feel truthiness as a sensation, catharsis is the experience of resolution of paradox. It's laughter.
Unbelievable and absolutely too wonderful for words! Bruce Alderman where the hell have you been for my entire academic existence? I am going to be listening to this one very, very many times. What a trip. Thank the transcendental naturalist post-metaphysical God of the dark seeds in the Yin and the Yang and the multipolar convergence for this conversation, the internet, the ontological stack, and for the axial revolution, and many other things. This is GOLD!!!
Thanks so much to John, Greg, Bruce and Layman for a really enlightening dialogos
Thin strong vs thick strong orientation, and ritual. Thanks for the series!
27:07 I've had this weird little thought bothering me lately where I consider whether I would rather be Ram Dass's Rick Rubin or Rick Rubin's Ram Dass that just came to mind here. Maybe that will mean something to somebody.
Here I think I'm thinking of Ram Dass as in the world but not of it vs Rick Rubin as of the world but not in it.
This use of language... Does it help anyone make life more simple and elegant? It sounds to me like the speakers may be chasing complexity and verbose language at the expense of clear meaning and practicality.
Not really; by using precise, technical language they can compact a long string of ideas and concepts into sentences instead of pages of text. Although I am not in their fields so I do have to sometimes go refresh my memory and look up the terms 😅
I agree. The problem is that taking this insight and making it simple is really bloomin' hard and so the degree to which I can critique it as complicated is the degree to which I need to put my money where my mouth is and do the simplifying myself! I can't and so I don't critique it as is. If you can, please do! You're right! We need it simpler!
@@benhennessy-garside2302
amen, people who are able to do this are never listened to because people like this get lost in their own ideas and everything moves at a snail’s pace.
I tried to reach out to people like this to propose some insight but they won’t even give you 5 minutes. It’s like they act like celebrities who have no time to hear out someone outside their club.
What a hopefull, inspiring and amplifing experimce to listen in on. And the point about narrative, art and artictic endouver have emergied and reawakened this one to continue to build a bridge between meaning and philosophy as an Enacted exploration of serious play whintin creative writing from a aphofatic flow of the cohenrence of flow. 🎉
Considering a more ...meaningful, truthful, and useful.... embrace of the ...historical, philosophical and sciento-technological.... narratives with an integrally greater conscience coming forth and going forward.
Where can we find the whole Transcendent Naturalism series?
If I put a link here, YT will hide the comment. The full series is hosted on Gregg's UTOK channel, as its own playlist.
Thank you!
Sorry but where is the Science part?
amazing dialogue. raw, high octane stuff. i wonder how this information gets digested at different scales of semantic sophistication and percepttual heirarchy?
It doesn’t, that’s why asking or begging for an artist is as old as religion goes.
Lost in babble.
@@mellonglass go spread your pessimistic vitriol somewhere else.
You're right, its too dense to be chewed by anyone but the strongest biters, but they are missing the simplicity.
I wrote a poem, that captures some of my model, re truth and false belief:
Truth is not a bitter pill to swallow
Only poison's bitter, you can trust your tongue
The truth will set you free just feel and follow
Spit out that bile you're fed when you were young
Grow up, don't cry, the truth hurts, says the bully
The world is cold and hard for all of time
A belief you know that hurts him deep and fully
But you know it can't be true, it doesn't rhyme!
@@TheKeyToKnowledge how touching.
WOW I understand John way more than I understand Greg!
Anyone recomend episodes of after Socrates I watched all of awakening from the meaning crisis a couple times
yes indeed
Gregg's summary of transcendent naturalism, where 4 interrelated components at the broad level are I think:
1. a layered ontology which needs to be considered in relationship to
2. a conformist theory of knowledge, where there's a framing of our cognitive, epistemic apparatus to the layered ontology of Nature, to create a conformist structure
and here's where I'm confused, if the third is
3. the transjective, where the conformist structure needs to be understood as transjective, or
3. the reframing with the transjective into extended naturalism, and then that situated in
4. kairotic (? spelling) moment that affords a collective transcendence as collective meaning and awareness leap for the individual, all that bound up as number four.
my simplistic interpretation:
1. intelligibility of layered ontology assuages emotional need of collective, allowing a coupling arrangement of marriage where emotional need of one is answered by rationalization from the other, withdrawing that from the environment. The forming of groups then couples in groups which leads to
2. increased efficiency which produces a human mediated knowledge pool which is separated by media and coupled with care back to Nature, where the
3. transjective, where the knowledge is
4. shared with the non-human, where a triangle object of human marriage preserves binary coupling for context realizations, where this is lost in a regular couple marriage by one side's estrangement from intelligibility in the environment, since that possibility is removed by neo-business need for efficiency. That unanswered need of the other partner moving into the group, and that subsumed into the neo-political, which itself has lost the range of movement in the positive and negative freedom sets that each liberal and conservative group are supposed to contain while favoring one or the other, in context so people adjust to that as a collective response.
This triangle works by a) allowing complexity of binary couplings for relevance b) encouraging passing of knowledge from older to younger c) keeping things at the local level which is more efficient, and having more resources for more freedom of that kind to re-connect to meaning in the environment, as in Bildung.
One fix anyway, thanks again.
@projectmalus Sincerely, thank you for the summary! Chairotic I believe is the correct spelling. And now...
Sarcastically: wow! Layman's terms, finally! 🤣🤣
Seriously, good notes! It makes looking up all the terms again and referencing back to the video for a deeper dive MUCH easier! 🫡
@@LatverianBuffoon Thanks, I thought I could have done much better and have been meaning to add that and a compilation of quotes from the series.
In any case (going free form a bit here) if a person has intent, actions and attitude then it seems like persona and actions. A question might be, why zombies? Haven't read John et al's book...zombies when a variety of perceptions is reduced and actions are left intact, I'm guessing.
Two world mythology as a person on one level instead of two, how ? Loss of dimension with that as virtuous higher guiding compromise on lower, which is only an observation.
Two world is where the bad procedural and propositional match can be seen.
Take the three leaps, and replace one with a "third attractor" which makes a two step (for the person) since it polarizes the other two leaps as a set.
This becomes the one level where objects are positioned in power and need games, often objectifying time - and thus your response to that - to do so.
The permissions for that goes back to the zombies, and why they gave up their autonomy, how it happened, how it happens, the actors and the scapegoats.
Have a great day and thanks for the reply.
@@LatverianBuffoon Still going free form: seeing a different way, where the 4 P's are like this
-
-
-
-
and the three leaps are the spaces between. How does that translate between that person and the world?
A completely statistical view can be had, and is the best imo.
Each humanoid species in the galaxy might have this same test, where they take up something common in their environment which they aren't adapted to, and thru cleverness and happenstance use this to propel the species into higher cognition, while posing a gate which must be passed thru. Having the basic equipment and more time to observe intelligence in the world (and act upon it) where the gate is the power of that and the efficiency of production and consumption.
So a person can see this statistically as significant, witness the Sea Peoples as first they bring the stuff, then the drugs, then the weapons.
For a personal view, consider 7 (or so) effects on the person from consuming the grass family, as a non-ruminant, where that stuff is made 'mostly' better and permissions given. In their personal system, the objects have a few which are more affected, but the form of humans is similar. Objects like kidneys but also endochrine system perhaps, and self positioned between object brain and object liver for instance, and also those objects having a correspondence in objects of the world system so self moves out.
Point is that a person can see their weak spot(s) and see how it flavors or colors them.
Also, grass has many forms and a single intent, and humans have many opinions/perceptions and similar form. Can you see how zombie is when similar form and perception, and actions restrained in terms of level, and misplaced power assumptions as in, who is more powerful and what place does knowledge have there, where humor might be higher in understanding knowledge. where humor is a drug that vibrates as misunderstood action combined with terror.
Back to the two freedoms at that point, and seeing who has power for change in society, who is closer to the knife edge.
@@LatverianBuffoon comment number 3 or 4, another peek at the statistical as virtuous level above compromise. Take that 4 P's again as
-
-
-
-
with the three leaps between along with self.
What's above this?
If allow and assert are actions, as 2 where 2^1 moves as exponent series, where origin is like the first black hole created as the first sun built around that, becoming many suns etc as still the same object in different ages of that, that we see.
This vertical spinning shaft emanates outward as increasingly wider still vertically orientated pipe, the series where one must run faster out on the perimeter to catch up.
Life and the eternal object as a shear pin meant to break, the one inside the shaft and the many as intelligible, connecting the vertical as the horizontal, and humans at the 45 degree, perhaps at that groove where the snapping needs to happen, when something moves back from the future as powerful. Space between the "pipes".
2^2 as lower life, humans as 2^3 which is 8, so 7 is between the 4 P's as 2^2, and the dodecahedron as 2^5 interaction set possibilities, where the exponents allow moving between origin and perimeter.
@@LatverianBuffoon Whew!
The bromance is lovely fellas but what happened to the "we are comprehensively prone to self-deception?" With all due respect to the sincerity of your efforts, like the vast majority of well educated people are you 'unwittingly' addicted to the feeling of the abstract being real, that underpins our communication biased consciousness?
That sense-of-knowing we all adapt to during our early-life behavioral adaptation to speaking our mother’s tongue and beginning the development of our rhetoric-is-reality, delusion of consciousness.
Does 'imminent' transcendence involve a move from the symbolic-cognition of knowing, to noticing the entwined truths and falsehoods inherent in every sight associated word you possibly imagine within the 'imaginal-realm' we commonly use the reality-labeling word 'mind' to imaginatively define?
Is an 'epiphany' creating way of feeling imminent transcendence, noticing 'how' you can name the objects clearly seen in the environment all four men occupy, with any 'other' descriptive words you possibly imagine without altering the 'reality' of the objects or what your 'eyes' are actually seeing?
Is this why the Ascension philosopher from Nazareth said "they seeing, see not, hearing, hear not, and neither do they understand?" And is this a timeless truth about the perceptual-pretense involved in creating the 'religio' (binding) sense of a consensus-reality and the conscious sense-of-certainty required to overcome our existential anxiety about the inherent uncertainty, involved in the reality of being-in-time?
Welcome to the feel good waffle show where everything is super deep and beautiful.
A story is what it feels like to be a system from the inside ( only place ther is ultimately)…brilliant
I’m wondering if you are familiar with Ken wheeler and his crowd.
He claims to know ancient pali / Buddhism etc.
I used to watch some of his magnet images/ ferrocell etc.
he’s off the wall but who isn’t
I know two of the fellows well - Bruce and Layman. That said, this conversation feels way overly abstract; it was practically crying out to God for practical examples the listener might employ. I'm just not so sure that theology is in that much trouble; I look out and see a vibrant landscape of practice that - without a whole lot of overly self-conscious reimagining - has in a poly kind of way seeped into the lives of those who practice. In many ways, it's already being done by those on the ground. In any case, I wish this group had stuck to a teaching rule I like to use: For every abstract reflection, then name why it matters and what difference it would make. Tell it to me like I was five.
Yeah, I hear you, Mark. Have you watched the rest of the series up to this point? You'll see if you listen to the first 4 videos in that series that John lays out a several-hours-long case for why we need an 'extended naturalism,' why we need to admit a leveled ontology, why levels of knowing will accompany those levels of being, why we should adopt a 'conformity' epistemology (rather than a representational or correspondence one), why there is room for 'strong transcendence,' why we need to admit both bottom up and top down causation (emergence and emanation), why we need a transjective account that transcends subject-object dualism, why we need to be able to take 'the sacred' seriously again, and so on. He's explicitly mirroring certain neo-Platonic / Plotinusian models, which also influenced Ken's account, as well as some Eastern ones (like Zen), but he's providing some new scientific and philosophical grounds for a number of the pieces. It's a highly abstract and nuanced presentation that is delivered over 5 or 6 hours, all told.
And Bruce and Layman were asked to respond to that. It was a challenge to try to respond to all of it in the short time they had, so yeah, they had to choose between comprehensiveness & density, or a more accessible but also much thinner surface response.
At 4:40 if you are only going to define IPS once, "because it's a bit of a mouthful", then at least annunciate clearly so that it is not an auditory smudge of jargon.
Yeah, a bit of a stumble there, but it wasn't the only time the full name was mentioned. Why so many unfriendly comments in the YT comment sections, and so little convivial, good spirited exchange?
van der klay will have a field day with this
Resolutions like these leave me wondering (worrying?) about the division of labor. How does this proposal land with you, John et al.:
You are all more often stronger theorists and argumentors/dialecticians than actors/organizers (sometimes 'too universally minded to be of relative good,' although of course you are closer to binding the two in harmony than all the other theorists - which is why I'm even making this proposal to you, and arguably why others are doing the same as me by devoting their regular attention).
If the next Buddha is the Sangha, perhaps devote the energy you all have left to the part you can play the best in the larger whole (as pioneers of the next system of justification), and pass off the action/organizing to organizers who can take the power of your would-be growing theoretical consensus (aim more for affording *this* for actors/organizers) as justification that they can *merely point to* in order to clear the way of opposition for their manner of organizing.
I would rather see you all spend more time chewing into the agora, challenging and wrestling with the dominant *theorists* (not *just* theories - for better or worse, public intellectuals play an important dramatic cultural-developmental role right now, and virtue is sorely missing in these dramatic 'debate' events - consider participating more in this public ritual, with the possibility of transmuting it from the inside-out), and merely promoting the visibility of, and midwifing, good actors/organizers (e.g. Rafe Kelley).
God is there a lot of jargon in this discussion
+ a lot of posturing and not much more I am afraid...
Mmm, I have no way of telling my kids, what exactly was said.
The academy doesn’t have art, it has copy.
Gestalt is a lost wallet, searching madly for friends.
So true, but they are not lost entirely, just fragmented, and still confused enough to not see the whole picture, and thus can never explain it to a child. The truth is so simple, academic words may be precise but also fragmentary.
I have a friend who is also working on a minimal metaphysics to explain reality…problem is that he is so engrossed in physicalist priors that his conception of the real will lead him in a circular way to the same old materialist metaphysics that produces all the Gordian knot problems ( ala Tim Eastman ) that we need to break away from. Without acknowledgement of the sacred, theology, and the non propositional his project is doomed at inception. You probably all know this friend of mine…he has a podcast a number of you have appears on.
I am doing the same but I have discarded all priors except continuity and coherence, can we talk?
What the actual f*** is this guy talking about?
Philosophy of Science. An interest in Methodology and Epistemology and the life sciences are necessary to understand what he is talking about. He is saying he dislikes Naturalism and wants it replaced with pretty woo woo (because it feels so nice and fits his religious and spiritual woo woo).
Luckily science pretty much rejects this philosophical mumbo jumbo that offers NOTHING material or helpful.
You can not be complete until you can integrate both which seem to be true but cannot both be true at the same time. You can feel truthiness as a sensation, catharsis is the experience of resolution of paradox. It's laughter.
chujyil gardens
Word salad. Clicking off.
Language, Logic and Love are not coming through 🤦♂️