"The verticle dimension cannot be excluded from the project of working out intelligibility, and if we exclude the doreground it is going to come back in neurotic ways from the background." The importance of this statement cannot be overstated.
Well Karen, you’ve outdone yourself here with this collaboration. Perhaps because this discussion was so personal to me and my specific interest within “this little corner of the Internet”, I thought it exceptional. These are the types of discussions I would have hoped followed JBPs’ initiating our gathering here in the first place. Thanks to all your wonderful guests, and of course to you. This made my day a better one.
@@anselman3156 But just the best eh? It’s so refreshing, and important, to showcase eminent Scientists being unconflicted when considering such ‘matters’. It’s why I enjoy Karens’ content. It’s where I’m at. Glad to see you’re still paying attention here😉
What a splendid meeting of minds you have facilitated here, Karen! I had been hopeful for some time that their paths would cross and I am so delighted that you brought it about! It made for a very enriching and fascinating conversation which I hope serves as but an introduction and starting point for further fellowship and collaboration!
I just finished listening to Dr. Vervaeke’s presentation at the UTOK Conference where he mentioned Dr. Wolfgang Smith, and then I was absolutely thrilled to see them in conversation here. Golly, this was golden, and the way they spoke makes me think that Gibson, Bergson, Owen Barfield, and Hegel as found in the Science of Logic (not as interpreted by Marx) need to be overlain. A conversation that is very important is coming together all around us, I’m happy to say, one that is helping us escape Autonomous Rationality and Nominalism. Thank you for the work you do to help make that conversation flourish!
What a wonderful conversation! The 90 min went by so fast--I felt like I was momentarily transported to a non-physical realm where Ideas (from past, present, and future) intermingle outside of the domain of Time. Thank you!
@@TheMeaningCode Oh, I am no stranger to your podcasts. The other one I really like is Mark Levine with JV. So good. Btw, I think Steve Bosnak, who wrote a book called Embodiment, could be a really awesome addition to this corner of the Internet. He is a Jungian psychoanalyst who studies dream embodiment. I think the insight he gained from exploring thousands of dreams could be good candidate as one of the of practices in the ecology of practices.
Two guys go into science looking for the answer to life the universe and everything (which is 42, for those who know, but apparently everyone missed the joke, apparently, even if you know the reference) but end up realizing that science doesn't give you that answer. In the past, NO ONE thought it should, would or could. Instead, they are all discovering the limits of science and still not accepting that it has any. Very strange behavior, if you ask me. Great conversation, however, wonderful framing! Well done indeed, as always, Karen!
This was amazing! Thank you Karen for putting the two gentlemen together. What an incredible and exciting conversation this was to get to listen to! That quote from Cosmos and the Transcendent (I think?) was so great, I loved this whole thing though.
@@meinking22 Sometimes growth hurts, but it's a good thing to get used to. 😉 At some point, I realized that if I wasn't confused then I probably wasn't learning much
as an artist/ sculptor i think this conversation is fascinating on so many levels, - it's both a spiritual and sensual experience when you work to transform the ide, and shape it into "a thing" in the physical space. Thanks a lot :)
@@maggen_me7790 Two playlists for you. Art and Creativity: Art and Creativity th-cam.com/play/PLoARw9zo4EUb2rFiB1d7njwWU_nKRaZ9l.html And The Physics of Life: The Physics of Life th-cam.com/play/PLoARw9zo4EUZhxqfaqYU5yjy0-Tr8RlB4.html
Here from Vervaeke's channel, thank you so much for arranging this. I really really hope we can hear more from Wofgang Smith. PARTICULARLY interested in his Catholic faith as a Platonist. Do you think he would ever talk to Pageau? Really looking forward to another conversation with Vervaeke after he reads "Wisdom of Christian Kabbalah".
Thanks very much Dr Wolfgang Smith and the learned organiser and participants for this extraordinary intellectual feast. Here you taught that "VERITAS" which is inscribed in Harvard's coat of arms but is almost never taught there! We cannot thank you enough for that. ... It is most remarkable that Rumi (1207-1273) uses the term "no-thing-ness" that John Vervaeke suggested for the highest ontological level (the central point in the integral cosmic icon). Rumi's term (in the original Persian) is " `adam " (Chittick translates it, in his The Sufi Path of Love, as "non-existence") which contrary to its apparent meaning, connotes absolute reality. In the context of the Immaculate Conception, Rumi says that the Holy Spirit said to the Blessed Virgin: "in non-existence I am a King and standardbearer."...
👏👏👏👍👍Most Platonic question would be : What are moving ? People on the surface of The Earth or The Clouds/Wind in the sky above the surface. Even Gibson with all advanced quantitative/qualitative methods couldn't figure it out correctly, because of Terror of Earth@Rest consequences for him.
Dr. Wolfgang giving the prescription of the exclusity of the Judeo-Christian revelation, and John Apologizing to Karen for calling her Mary, Bravo! Trying to sound byte Eckhart with the Eye by which G-d sees me as the same by which I see helped Bishop Berkley confront the emerging post Cartisian philosophical world, and thus gave the measuring device significance again. Eckhart’s anachronism is its perennial utility. On one hand, Eckhart acted as a proto-philosopher of religion accomodating all belief systems, perhaps the Meister worked with the double theory of truth found at the university of Paris? On the other and as a Domincian, he was obligated toward his role as a defender of the Christian faith and denied being a heretic at his trial at Cologne and Avignon.
The framing of Wolfgang Smith's work is more ontological than epistemological, while Vervaeke's is more epistemological and ─ I would add, and not as a consequence ─ *psychologistic*, which is surely his weakness, as anyone versed in classical/religious thought can easily perceive. Vervaeke isn't that far from thinkers (yes, thinkers, not intellectuals) of the Progressive Era in U.S. The difference is his/our cultural background, which is much more chaotic. From a certain point, that chaos is visibly reflected in his mindset. You will not loose anything by going straight to the works of Dr. Wolfgang Smith or even to a Jay Dyer's «Meta-Narratives: Essays on Philosophy and Symbolism». (For the fan club: I'm not being rude: it's just the way it is.)
"It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes" - Solomon, Ecclesiastes 7:18 Do we gain wisdom and find meaning as we learn to navigate the continuum space created by values that are in tension with each other? Oppositional learning?
It's all the mutually verifiable Trinity of the Good, True, and Beautiful. True colonized the others like a hostile take-over. The Good and Beautiful have been in epistemological exile for nearly 500 years.
@@kelvinyogi3284 Yeah, pretty sure I'm past religious ritualization and mythological story making to understand the workings of the Kosmos. But that doesn't mean I'm an atheist or agnostic. My thinking is that the lure of mythology and religion is a long standing resonance field that began as attempts to explain "msgical" phenomena and continued in combination with the imagined need to be with a community for comfort and safety. Now most can't tell me the difference between mythology and reality.
@@clintnorton4322 Well, I can't agree with the idea that mythology/religion «began as attempts to explain» whatever. You're at Illuminism. It can, but it isn't primarily an attempt to explain anything. That's a function, and, as such, it's naturally secondary.
@@clintnorton4322 By the way, I'm not alluding only to the historical aspect of it. We surely are historically attached to religion/mythology, but we are also *ontologically* attached to it. It's this that people tend to dismiss.
@@kelvinyogi3284 I don't have a problem with the ontological connection you mentioned, just the way you might be interpreting that connection. Would you elaborate?
Science is already grounded in platonism. I think it's another example of loving the cause, but not the consequences. Or they are only projecting. You can Google something like: Is Platonism a rationalism? Platonic science will be inevitably top-down. Make an hypothesis, test it. I think they just want to tack their God onto science, but it won't change anything.
Earth centric worldview. From our perspective, all the stars a fixed except in a broad band called the equinox, which shifts really slowly over thousands of years. It's where the zodiac is and on sign is about 2000 years I think. We just entered the aquarius age. Before we were in the pisces. The Sun goes up in the sky every day, the moon does the same more or less. The planets turn around us except two, Venus and Mercury, who move faster but sometimes go back. Now in terms of spheres, it is tricky. In the medieval ages, people were ignorant of the actual theories which had been forgotten, and it was usually frowned upon by the Church. So they has simplistic explanations based on the Earth being a sphere, and the planets each on their own sphere, and a bigger one where the stars are. I think they were believed to be pinpricks and behind them God who gave the light. If you go back to antiquity though, it was a complex system and they had mechanical devices that predicted the position of the planets based on a network of gears. It's why Aristotle said there were around 50 to 70 gods that moved the planets. He did not know exactly, but each gear would have been a god, because if it worked here on Earth, then it would also work in the sky. What we presented as physical gears would be some sort of spiritual forces in the sky, or forms similar to the device but invisible. Ptolemee of course knew this, but he presented it in books in a more simplified manner, like the results of the device, so that is what the people in the medieval age believed in, without knowing about the real science behind. And no, I don't have any links, but any decent astrology book should be able to explain or just some history books. The device I saw in a youtube video, it's an archeological find that is pretty recent and we don't have the complete device, but it's been reconstructed.
'inexhaustible intelligibility' can not avoid or ignore measurement of the 'real' world because philosophy by itself can tell us nothing about the 'real' world. platonic objects die when people die!
At 56:16 🔺 only good: to be associated with Mary 🔻 in the form of let’s say: Shekinah 🙏🏽 • 💠 💧 🧊 • 🔷 Form the waters, Christ-alize, these can be walked on… or even used to refract illumination • 🤭 “so Us, tells they; we here”
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D1 | Fall | ต่อเนื่อง ในสัปดาห์สอง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ElcO9uC_Dbk/mqdefault.jpg)
John Vervaeke has since made these comments indicating what he thinks of Wolfgang’s ideas: th-cam.com/video/ycuFZz3bns8/w-d-xo.html
"The verticle dimension cannot be excluded from the project of working out intelligibility, and if we exclude the doreground it is going to come back in neurotic ways from the background."
The importance of this statement cannot be overstated.
Well Karen, you’ve outdone yourself here with this collaboration. Perhaps because this discussion was so personal to me and my specific interest within “this little corner of the Internet”, I thought it exceptional. These are the types of discussions I would have hoped followed JBPs’ initiating our gathering here in the first place.
Thanks to all your wonderful guests, and of course to you. This made my day a better one.
Yes, this is a really good one.
@@anselman3156 But just the best eh? It’s so refreshing, and important, to showcase eminent Scientists being unconflicted when considering such ‘matters’. It’s why I enjoy Karens’ content. It’s where I’m at.
Glad to see you’re still paying attention here😉
What a splendid meeting of minds you have facilitated here, Karen! I had been hopeful for some time that their paths would cross and I am so delighted that you brought it about! It made for a very enriching and fascinating conversation which I hope serves as but an introduction and starting point for further fellowship and collaboration!
Thank you Wolfgang, Richard, John and Karen, thank you for your time everyone, wonderful conversation, peace
Wonderful discussion! I read Wolfgang Smith books years ago and it was wonderful to see him in action here.
I just finished listening to Dr. Vervaeke’s presentation at the UTOK Conference where he mentioned Dr. Wolfgang Smith, and then I was absolutely thrilled to see them in conversation here. Golly, this was golden, and the way they spoke makes me think that Gibson, Bergson, Owen Barfield, and Hegel as found in the Science of Logic (not as interpreted by Marx) need to be overlain. A conversation that is very important is coming together all around us, I’m happy to say, one that is helping us escape Autonomous Rationality and Nominalism. Thank you for the work you do to help make that conversation flourish!
What a wonderful conversation! The 90 min went by so fast--I felt like I was momentarily transported to a non-physical realm where Ideas (from past, present, and future) intermingle outside of the domain of Time. Thank you!
Thank you for your kind words. I hope you have fun exploring the rest of The Meaning Code as there are many many wonderful conversations.
@@TheMeaningCode Oh, I am no stranger to your podcasts. The other one I really like is Mark Levine with JV. So good. Btw, I think Steve Bosnak, who wrote a book called Embodiment, could be a really awesome addition to this corner of the Internet. He is a Jungian psychoanalyst who studies dream embodiment. I think the insight he gained from exploring thousands of dreams could be good candidate as one of the of practices in the ecology of practices.
@@kwan7278 I will look into it :-)
Two guys go into science looking for the answer to life the universe and everything (which is 42, for those who know, but apparently everyone missed the joke, apparently, even if you know the reference) but end up realizing that science doesn't give you that answer. In the past, NO ONE thought it should, would or could. Instead, they are all discovering the limits of science and still not accepting that it has any. Very strange behavior, if you ask me.
Great conversation, however, wonderful framing! Well done indeed, as always, Karen!
What a great conversation. Enjoyed this a lot.
“The Measurer cannot be measured”. In a nutshell 👍
Wolfgang Smith really deserves the title “wise”
Thanks John, Wolfgang, Richard and Karen!
Thanks Lee.
This was amazing! Thank you Karen for putting the two gentlemen together. What an incredible and exciting conversation this was to get to listen to! That quote from Cosmos and the Transcendent (I think?) was so great, I loved this whole thing though.
This one’s probably going to hurt my brain.
That tingle in your brain you feel is not pain...it's growth. 😉
@@meinking22 Sometimes growth hurts, but it's a good thing to get used to. 😉 At some point, I realized that if I wasn't confused then I probably wasn't learning much
Agreed 🤯
What a fascinating collaboration. Thank you for bringing this together, Karen.
I was hoping this meeting would happen eventually. Very cool!
as an artist/ sculptor i think this conversation is fascinating on so many levels, - it's both a spiritual and sensual experience when you work to transform the ide, and shape it into "a thing" in the physical space. Thanks a lot :)
You would enjoy the many episodes I have done with Glen the physicist in which we explore how ideas become physical.
Do you have a website where I could see your work?
@@TheMeaningCode Thank you Karen I will explore:)
@@maggen_me7790 Two playlists for you. Art and Creativity: Art and Creativity
th-cam.com/play/PLoARw9zo4EUb2rFiB1d7njwWU_nKRaZ9l.html
And The Physics of Life: The Physics of Life
th-cam.com/play/PLoARw9zo4EUZhxqfaqYU5yjy0-Tr8RlB4.html
@@TheMeaningCode Thanks,- thats nice of you :)
Here from Vervaeke's channel, thank you so much for arranging this. I really really hope we can hear more from Wofgang Smith. PARTICULARLY interested in his Catholic faith as a Platonist.
Do you think he would ever talk to Pageau? Really looking forward to another conversation with Vervaeke after he reads "Wisdom of Christian Kabbalah".
I’m working on it:-)
Thanks very much Dr Wolfgang Smith and the learned organiser and participants for this extraordinary intellectual feast.
Here you taught that "VERITAS" which is inscribed in Harvard's coat of arms but is almost never taught there!
We cannot thank you enough for that.
... It is most remarkable that Rumi (1207-1273) uses the term "no-thing-ness" that John Vervaeke suggested for the highest ontological level (the central point in the integral cosmic icon).
Rumi's term (in the original Persian) is " `adam " (Chittick translates it, in his The Sufi Path of Love, as "non-existence") which contrary to its apparent meaning, connotes absolute reality.
In the context of the Immaculate Conception, Rumi says that the Holy Spirit said to the Blessed Virgin:
"in non-existence I am a King and standardbearer."...
Very well done Karen.
Excellent conversation.
👏👏👏👍👍Most Platonic question would be : What are moving ? People on the surface of The Earth or The Clouds/Wind in the sky above the surface. Even Gibson with all advanced quantitative/qualitative methods couldn't figure it out correctly, because of Terror of Earth@Rest consequences for him.
Thanks again Karen!
Thanks for making this happen Karen
I am very excited for the release of Dr. Wolfgang's 2 new books! Was there any mention off air of an eta for their availability?
Vedanta is already available on Amazon and on the philos-Sophia.org website, but the Physics: a Science in Search of an Ontology is not yet.
Dr. Wolfgang giving the prescription of the exclusity of the Judeo-Christian revelation, and John Apologizing to Karen for calling her Mary, Bravo! Trying to sound byte Eckhart with the Eye by which G-d sees me as the same by which I see helped Bishop Berkley confront the emerging post Cartisian philosophical world, and thus gave the measuring device significance again. Eckhart’s anachronism is its perennial utility. On one hand, Eckhart acted as a proto-philosopher of religion accomodating all belief systems, perhaps the Meister worked with the double theory of truth found at the university of Paris? On the other and as a Domincian, he was obligated toward his role as a defender of the Christian faith and denied being a heretic at his trial at Cologne and Avignon.
Thanks Karen!
The framing of Wolfgang Smith's work is more ontological than epistemological, while Vervaeke's is more epistemological and ─ I would add, and not as a consequence ─ *psychologistic*, which is surely his weakness, as anyone versed in classical/religious thought can easily perceive. Vervaeke isn't that far from thinkers (yes, thinkers, not intellectuals) of the Progressive Era in U.S. The difference is his/our cultural background, which is much more chaotic. From a certain point, that chaos is visibly reflected in his mindset. You will not loose anything by going straight to the works of Dr. Wolfgang Smith or even to a Jay Dyer's «Meta-Narratives: Essays on Philosophy and Symbolism». (For the fan club: I'm not being rude: it's just the way it is.)
Awesome
"It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes" - Solomon, Ecclesiastes 7:18
Do we gain wisdom and find meaning as we learn to navigate the continuum space created by values that are in tension with each other? Oppositional learning?
Yes!!!
Yessssss!!!
It's all the mutually verifiable Trinity of the Good, True, and Beautiful. True colonized the others like a hostile take-over. The Good and Beautiful have been in epistemological exile for nearly 500 years.
34:20 the limitations of science
New subscriber here
1:26:02 He is very much echoing Tomberg here.
What is it that pulls people toward religions and mythologies?
The very constitution of reality. Do you really think you're free from it?
@@kelvinyogi3284
Yeah, pretty sure I'm past religious ritualization and mythological story making to understand the workings of the Kosmos. But that doesn't mean I'm an atheist or agnostic.
My thinking is that the lure of mythology and religion is a long standing resonance field that began as attempts to explain "msgical" phenomena and continued in combination with the imagined need to be with a community for comfort and safety. Now most can't tell me the difference between mythology and reality.
@@clintnorton4322 Well, I can't agree with the idea that mythology/religion «began as attempts to explain» whatever. You're at Illuminism. It can, but it isn't primarily an attempt to explain anything. That's a function, and, as such, it's naturally secondary.
@@clintnorton4322 By the way, I'm not alluding only to the historical aspect of it. We surely are historically attached to religion/mythology, but we are also *ontologically* attached to it. It's this that people tend to dismiss.
@@kelvinyogi3284 I don't have a problem with the ontological connection you mentioned, just the way you might be interpreting that connection. Would you elaborate?
Science is already grounded in platonism. I think it's another example of loving the cause, but not the consequences. Or they are only projecting.
You can Google something like: Is Platonism a rationalism?
Platonic science will be inevitably top-down. Make an hypothesis, test it.
I think they just want to tack their God onto science, but it won't change anything.
Can anyone explain this Ptolemaic vision of the Fixed Stars and the Planetary sphere that Dr Smith discusses?
Try to study problems of Earth@Rest against Earth@Move from philosophical consequences to perception of The World
Do you have a resource to recommend, or a link?
@@TheMeaningCode For starter ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf
Earth centric worldview. From our perspective, all the stars a fixed except in a broad band called the equinox, which shifts really slowly over thousands of years. It's where the zodiac is and on sign is about 2000 years I think. We just entered the aquarius age. Before we were in the pisces.
The Sun goes up in the sky every day, the moon does the same more or less.
The planets turn around us except two, Venus and Mercury, who move faster but sometimes go back.
Now in terms of spheres, it is tricky. In the medieval ages, people were ignorant of the actual theories which had been forgotten, and it was usually frowned upon by the Church. So they has simplistic explanations based on the Earth being a sphere, and the planets each on their own sphere, and a bigger one where the stars are. I think they were believed to be pinpricks and behind them God who gave the light.
If you go back to antiquity though, it was a complex system and they had mechanical devices that predicted the position of the planets based on a network of gears. It's why Aristotle said there were around 50 to 70 gods that moved the planets. He did not know exactly, but each gear would have been a god, because if it worked here on Earth, then it would also work in the sky. What we presented as physical gears would be some sort of spiritual forces in the sky, or forms similar to the device but invisible. Ptolemee of course knew this, but he presented it in books in a more simplified manner, like the results of the device, so that is what the people in the medieval age believed in, without knowing about the real science behind.
And no, I don't have any links, but any decent astrology book should be able to explain or just some history books. The device I saw in a youtube video, it's an archeological find that is pretty recent and we don't have the complete device, but it's been reconstructed.
'inexhaustible intelligibility' can not avoid or ignore measurement of the 'real' world because philosophy by itself can tell us nothing about the 'real' world. platonic objects die when people die!
Comment for traction.
At 56:16
🔺
only good: to be associated with Mary
🔻
in the form of let’s say: Shekinah 🙏🏽
• 💠
💧 🧊
• 🔷
Form the waters,
Christ-alize,
these can be walked on…
or even used to refract illumination
•
🤭
“so Us, tells they; we here”
may all forms past : manifest towards the : bettering path of the All’est
No-Thingness and Nothingness!
Can you timestamp this part ?
💓😁👍
Domains of Being.
•🟣⃝(⚫⃝(🔴⃝🟡⃝)⚪⃝(🟢⃝🔵⃝)⚫⃝)🟣• All Parts Simultaneously Central.
Esscentral.
29:00 NO-thingness