Brendan is amazing. He writes with an exquisite blend of crisp, rigourous and reasoned analysis, undergrounded in a lyrical and very human mythopoeisis. Jjust beautiful ❤ . I love him. Thank you for giving him exposure.
There is just so much gratitude for this corner, all of you people, and the sharing. I've followed you and your cohorts for a few years now. So much work and genuineness. Thank you John.
At around 47:50, when I heard John express unease with referring to a spouse as "other", I immediately made a mental note of the timestamp. I was driving, so pausing to comment was not feasible. I made the note with the intent to say... something, something... Buber. This, only to hear him referenced minutes later, still appropriate to the earlier context. Wonderful
Thanks for uploading, John. Every so often I go in a cycle of falling in and out of love with the pursuit of these ideas. This conversation was one that just ignited my passion again. You got several 'yes, that's right's out of me. Lovely discussion.
"Give a man a fish, feed him for the day, Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime". Yeah it's rough, but necessary. I think the cosmos thing is mainly for two things, timing and climatizing, like sensitising and recalibrating inner compass to autotune with the subtle changes in the cosmic field. I love this topic discussion 💛 Thank you Brandon. Inspired from your story, I discovered Cathedral City was named for the formation of rocks in nearby desert landscapes. Thanks again John. This was really good. I often think this type of wisdom is indeginous to Earth, whereas the other wisdom is indeginous in the world, therefore it will utilise all the flora and fauna language symbols for ecological, social, mental, physical and spiritual development. The octopus being one of many of those symbols, especially in Polynesian lineage. It's also a symbol for a national holistic health model in NZ since 1997.
43:10 “Kant says that […] you can’t use cause which is a relationship within phenomenal experience to talk about what caused all phenomenal experience, so you can’t do metaphysics, you can’t make arguments and infer a God; that’s to extend the causal relationship beyond its proper domain. And then he says the thing-in-itself is nothing you can ever experience but it causes your experience.“ I think this is a valid critique, he’s not pulling it out of nowhere to be sure-I interpret Kant as saying that intuition, as the immediate apprehension of a sense-content “caused” by external objects in-themselves (that is, sensibility is the relation in which the cognition bears a sensation), errs on the sense-content side of mental apprehension. The apprehension is a *perspective* insofar as apprehension is “our” capacity for modification or mediation of the independently-real object (Cf, with Sec.73 of Hegel’s Phenomenology “…Cognition as an instrument or medium”); intuition leans on being an *action* of the subject mediating a relation to the in-itself real rather than the real affecting a passive subject and being the sole originator of a cause. Sensibility for Kant is entirely subjective. Put another way, sensibility is not a mere *reaction* of the mind to external objects causing a sensation, but it is *first* an action, a prompting as receptivity, and *then* a reaction following that primary movement. This is the “proof” that Kant gives for the independently real-when the mind actively prompts forth (as receptivity) and there is no re-action of an external object, then there is simply no apprehension of sense-content and therefore no phenomena; when we do, the simple fact that we have any perceptions as such is “proof” that our sensibility apprehends something external. When he subordinates the abstract causal axiom in general to the phenomenal realm, he says that the “noumenal” cannot bear specific causal judgements in particular; but at the threshold between the phenomenal and noumenal, there is a “single bridge that stretches across” these two dimensions and thereby “proves” the external something. Kant is not making a causal judgement (that “objects alone cause our sensations”) solely in the realm of the objects themselves, but he is doing so *from* the perspectival subjectivity of sensibility *to* the objects and *back-towards* the phenomenal. The “cause” of sensation in sensibility is neither solely in the object nor the subject, it is co-primordially found in both necessarily at the same time. “Even our experience is a composite” (B1) Therefore, showing the necessity of a two-partness in experience, and then proving that only the first part is contained in phenomenal experience, it leads, by necessity, that the missing second part must be elsewhere in the only remaining “realm,” i.e. the noumenal. (“Prove the necessity of a duality; prove the existence of the first part in the first realm; the absence of second part in the first realm must prove the existence of the second.”)
Why do we dream, that's the central nervous system standing by, being ready for anything, after all these years we have to acknowledge humans came with a very basic alarm, and complete operations, what is evolution but the old hardware holding us together. Being able to articulate that into text is all us, peace Great finish, looking forward your next conversation, already saw your two sit downs with Gregg and John, Transcendent Naturalism.
I think a discord channel for more discussion would be hyper valuable for practice and the transformation of dialogos in us, love all, articulation is a superpower truly in this reality in this era
this is great stuff btw!! Its like my perfect tour of eclectic thoughts. Brings me through a whole bunch of ideas where I can stop to wander around a while, get back in and go to the next one. Incredibly useful and saves me from months and months of stumbling around just to find the right questions to ask😂
I would like to ask… why is there always the assumption that an infinite regress must be dismissed? Perhaps the whole project of seeking a “ground” is the problem. Needing to find the finite where there may be none? Lovely juicy juice gentlemen. Thank you 🙏🏽❤️
World, time and personal grounds because an untethered balloon is grounded by the atmosphere but not time. Music is grounded by the atmosphere also and the proportioning of the audibility, and a personal grounding as space in time afforded by the gradient and the group. A cup instead of a torus, open to the top with a good foundation of gravity and music of proportioning as self dancing. Top part might not be a torus of moving creativity but more like that new fractal shape discovered. Up and Atom did a recent video on this.
Wow, this is amazing. Beautiful discussion on point construction of a creative relationship in the mitts of an ionic change in this Aquarian transition… 🕊🦋🌹
I think if someone is facing crisis, it is often tied to differentiate not only identity, but causation. Science, in this case, is termed into unified one, and otherwise, differentiated (for example, IT and normative sciences, to make latter legitimate). So, there would be some specificity such as gunfire, it is also forced out to the oppressive life liver. "Liver" is also inversive. So, it makes mysteries of meaning, and when someone see certain way of doing it tacit, it causes another mysteries and even advanced to controversy. Then, it is matter of making sealing to right of explanation.
I have a question regarding the metaphysical necessity of the trinity, in Neo Platonism are we not invoking our own trinity of virtues, in regards to the Good, The True and the Beautiful?
I wonder if memory is a torus that's the equivalent of a linear track wound into a disc like a vinyl record. An object from a boundless creativity that is similar to proteins being folded, as the brain folding? A storehouse but an accessible and dynamic one, new fractal shape that repeats itself but not in the shapes unfolded. edit: but that can be refolded in a more repeating way.
I consider myself a skeptic and a critical-thinker, but unlike most of them I don't want to ignore anecdotal or contextual information patterns, or narrow my distributed cognition out of a fear of any group including because they have been labelled crazy. As a result, this year has been very strange for me, and I've come to lean towards popular ideas in Ufology metaphysics as being more likely than scientific materialism. I proceeded to briefly troll Richard Dawkins with some of my findings.
What in the world is self-like and not anthropomorphic...don't all mammals have faces? So a mammal object and a human object as a subset of that, which enables symbiosis or rather mimicking within that group. To kill a mouse is self defeating. Thanks for the show.
For anyone whos watching these, id imagine you're familiar and highly interested with the subject matter. Idk anyone personally so itd be awesome to get to talk about it in discord. I'll shoot an invite ro anyone interested
Cosmic Infolding The Divine Cosmic Infolding, Universe concentrates upon itself. As threads, all interdependent, Weave a web of rising consciousness. Grains of thought transform in the terrestrial sphere of thinking substance, As Mind is woven together as own elaborations of evermore perfect "I's," within a cosmos of more to see as one. Written by David MacArthur 1997.
John often issues a disclaimer stating that he *isn't* doing the thing that he's doing. It's like a form of magic - "if I'm conscious of it, and formally acknowledge and distance myself from it, then I can't be guilty of it." I don't think he's purposefully trying to deceive - I suspect it's as much self-deception as anything else. He may not *intend* to set himself up as a guru, but he does so nonetheless. Naming your foundation after yourself is hardly a modest move, after all. Edit: I think it may be down to naivety more than anything else. There's a streak of naive idealism that characterises Vervaeke and his associates , along with adjacent figures like Jaimungal, Fridman, etc.
How would you guys define the word 'guru' such that John fits the category? For me, the red flags go up if someone claims to have all the answers to all your questions, and as far as I've seen John only claims to have partial answers to very specific questions.
@@KalebPeters99 the dictionary definition says nothing about having all of the answers, although you could infer it. What I see with John is a burgeoning cult of personality, much like the cult that formed around Peterson. Witness, for instance, the gushing eulogies that clog the comments of their videos. Though he may wear the robes of 'serious science', John is, at bottom, a zealous evangeliser on a quasi-religious crusade.
Brendan is amazing. He writes with an exquisite blend of crisp, rigourous and reasoned analysis, undergrounded in a lyrical and very human mythopoeisis. Jjust beautiful ❤ . I love him.
Thank you for giving him exposure.
There is just so much gratitude for this corner, all of you people, and the sharing. I've followed you and your cohorts for a few years now. So much work and genuineness. Thank you John.
Never thought I'd see Zen and Neoplatonism discussed together. The parallels in meaning-making are enlightening! 🔍🕊
At around 47:50, when I heard John express unease with referring to a spouse as "other", I immediately made a mental note of the timestamp. I was driving, so pausing to comment was not feasible. I made the note with the intent to say... something, something... Buber. This, only to hear him referenced minutes later, still appropriate to the earlier context.
Wonderful
Thanks for uploading, John. Every so often I go in a cycle of falling in and out of love with the pursuit of these ideas. This conversation was one that just ignited my passion again. You got several 'yes, that's right's out of me. Lovely discussion.
"Give a man a fish, feed him for the day, Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime". Yeah it's rough, but necessary. I think the cosmos thing is mainly for two things, timing and climatizing, like sensitising and recalibrating inner compass to autotune with the subtle changes in the cosmic field. I love this topic discussion 💛 Thank you Brandon. Inspired from your story, I discovered Cathedral City was named for the formation of rocks in nearby desert landscapes. Thanks again John. This was really good. I often think this type of wisdom is indeginous to Earth, whereas the other wisdom is indeginous in the world, therefore it will utilise all the flora and fauna language symbols for ecological, social, mental, physical and spiritual development. The octopus being one of many of those symbols, especially in Polynesian lineage. It's also a symbol for a national holistic health model in NZ since 1997.
🐙💓
@john you are the kindest person ever.
Really excellent gents. Thank you both 🙏
43:10 “Kant says that […] you can’t use cause which is a relationship within phenomenal experience to talk about what caused all phenomenal experience, so you can’t do metaphysics, you can’t make arguments and infer a God; that’s to extend the causal relationship beyond its proper domain. And then he says the thing-in-itself is nothing you can ever experience but it causes your experience.“
I think this is a valid critique, he’s not pulling it out of nowhere to be sure-I interpret Kant as saying that intuition, as the immediate apprehension of a sense-content “caused” by external objects in-themselves (that is, sensibility is the relation in which the cognition bears a sensation), errs on the sense-content side of mental apprehension. The apprehension is a *perspective* insofar as apprehension is “our” capacity for modification or mediation of the independently-real object (Cf, with Sec.73 of Hegel’s Phenomenology “…Cognition as an instrument or medium”); intuition leans on being an *action* of the subject mediating a relation to the in-itself real rather than the real affecting a passive subject and being the sole originator of a cause.
Sensibility for Kant is entirely subjective. Put another way, sensibility is not a mere *reaction* of the mind to external objects causing a sensation, but it is *first* an action, a prompting as receptivity, and *then* a reaction following that primary movement. This is the “proof” that Kant gives for the independently real-when the mind actively prompts forth (as receptivity) and there is no re-action of an external object, then there is simply no apprehension of sense-content and therefore no phenomena; when we do, the simple fact that we have any perceptions as such is “proof” that our sensibility apprehends something external. When he subordinates the abstract causal axiom in general to the phenomenal realm, he says that the “noumenal” cannot bear specific causal judgements in particular; but at the threshold between the phenomenal and noumenal, there is a “single bridge that stretches across” these two dimensions and thereby “proves” the external something. Kant is not making a causal judgement (that “objects alone cause our sensations”) solely in the realm of the objects themselves, but he is doing so *from* the perspectival subjectivity of sensibility *to* the objects and *back-towards* the phenomenal.
The “cause” of sensation in sensibility is neither solely in the object nor the subject, it is co-primordially found in both necessarily at the same time. “Even our experience is a composite” (B1) Therefore, showing the necessity of a two-partness in experience, and then proving that only the first part is contained in phenomenal experience, it leads, by necessity, that the missing second part must be elsewhere in the only remaining “realm,” i.e. the noumenal.
(“Prove the necessity of a duality; prove the existence of the first part in the first realm; the absence of second part in the first realm must prove the existence of the second.”)
Wonderful. Thanks, fellas. So many familiar thoughts heard here. Anamnesis. 😊
Thanks Matt. Hope you are well.
Why do we dream, that's the central nervous system standing by, being ready for anything, after all these years we have to acknowledge humans came with a very basic alarm, and complete operations, what is evolution but the old hardware holding us together. Being able to articulate that into text is all us, peace
Great finish, looking forward your next conversation, already saw your two sit downs with Gregg and John, Transcendent Naturalism.
I think a discord channel for more discussion would be hyper valuable for practice and the transformation of dialogos in us, love all, articulation is a superpower truly in this reality in this era
this is great stuff btw!! Its like my perfect tour of eclectic thoughts. Brings me through a whole bunch of ideas where I can stop to wander around a while, get back in and go to the next one.
Incredibly useful and saves me from months and months of stumbling around just to find the right questions to ask😂
I would like to ask… why is there always the assumption that an infinite regress must be dismissed? Perhaps the whole project of seeking a “ground” is the problem. Needing to find the finite where there may be none?
Lovely juicy juice gentlemen. Thank you 🙏🏽❤️
World, time and personal grounds because an untethered balloon is grounded by the atmosphere but not time. Music is grounded by the atmosphere also and the proportioning of the audibility, and a personal grounding as space in time afforded by the gradient and the group. A cup instead of a torus, open to the top with a good foundation of gravity and music of proportioning as self dancing. Top part might not be a torus of moving creativity but more like that new fractal shape discovered. Up and Atom did a recent video on this.
Wow, this is amazing. Beautiful discussion on point construction of a creative relationship in the mitts of an ionic change in this Aquarian transition…
🕊🦋🌹
I think if someone is facing crisis, it is often tied to differentiate not only identity, but causation. Science, in this case, is termed into unified one, and otherwise, differentiated (for example, IT and normative sciences, to make latter legitimate). So, there would be some specificity such as gunfire, it is also forced out to the oppressive life liver. "Liver" is also inversive.
So, it makes mysteries of meaning, and when someone see certain way of doing it tacit, it causes another mysteries and even advanced to controversy. Then, it is matter of making sealing to right of explanation.
I have a question regarding the metaphysical necessity of the trinity, in Neo Platonism are we not invoking our own trinity of virtues, in regards to the Good, The True and the Beautiful?
V satisfying. Thanks😊
I wonder if memory is a torus that's the equivalent of a linear track wound into a disc like a vinyl record. An object from a boundless creativity that is similar to proteins being folded, as the brain folding? A storehouse but an accessible and dynamic one, new fractal shape that repeats itself but not in the shapes unfolded. edit: but that can be refolded in a more repeating way.
I consider myself a skeptic and a critical-thinker, but unlike most of them I don't want to ignore anecdotal or contextual information patterns, or narrow my distributed cognition out of a fear of any group including because they have been labelled crazy. As a result, this year has been very strange for me, and I've come to lean towards popular ideas in Ufology metaphysics as being more likely than scientific materialism. I proceeded to briefly troll Richard Dawkins with some of my findings.
Patreon is blocked in my country Egypt, consider making TH-cam memberships
Thank you. I will.
So, "the one in you" is the "Self"?
What in the world is self-like and not anthropomorphic...don't all mammals have faces? So a mammal object and a human object as a subset of that, which enables symbiosis or rather mimicking within that group. To kill a mouse is self defeating. Thanks for the show.
❤
For anyone whos watching these, id imagine you're familiar and highly interested with the subject matter. Idk anyone personally so itd be awesome to get to talk about it in discord. I'll shoot an invite ro anyone interested
Cosmic Infolding
The Divine Cosmic Infolding,
Universe concentrates upon itself.
As threads, all interdependent,
Weave a web of rising consciousness.
Grains of thought transform in the terrestrial sphere of thinking substance, As Mind is woven together as own elaborations of evermore perfect "I's," within a cosmos of more to see as one.
Written by David MacArthur 1997.
"no setting myself up as a guru". We shall see.
John often issues a disclaimer stating that he *isn't* doing the thing that he's doing. It's like a form of magic - "if I'm conscious of it, and formally acknowledge and distance myself from it, then I can't be guilty of it."
I don't think he's purposefully trying to deceive - I suspect it's as much self-deception as anything else. He may not *intend* to set himself up as a guru, but he does so nonetheless. Naming your foundation after yourself is hardly a modest move, after all.
Edit: I think it may be down to naivety more than anything else. There's a streak of naive idealism that characterises Vervaeke and his associates , along with adjacent figures like Jaimungal, Fridman, etc.
@@F--B very eloquently put
How would you guys define the word 'guru' such that John fits the category?
For me, the red flags go up if someone claims to have all the answers to all your questions, and as far as I've seen John only claims to have partial answers to very specific questions.
@@KalebPeters99 the dictionary definition says nothing about having all of the answers, although you could infer it. What I see with John is a burgeoning cult of personality, much like the cult that formed around Peterson. Witness, for instance, the gushing eulogies that clog the comments of their videos.
Though he may wear the robes of 'serious science', John is, at bottom, a zealous evangeliser on a quasi-religious crusade.
SubStance