1:11:39 Bridging the personal & the universal I would say that the true personal already is. It's a lived universal, a presencing of eternity in one's body. And telling the truth as we see it (what else is there), esp to ourselves, is the way to do this. As I see it.
Re: polarity……. Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled." -The Kybalion
Intelligence is the imagination. It goes beyond normal everyday intelligence. That’s what barfield is trying to convince the reader. We aren’t confined just to our senses about our intelligence but we can break that barrier and go beyond that. Imagination is intelligence beyond our senses and is a spiritual activity.
Vervaeke’s latest in the series with Henriques (transcendent naturalism) has a part in Barfield. Vervaeke says something like ‘Barfield’s conclusion of final participation is respectable, but his argument to get there has been debunked’. Vervaeke goes on to say he can’t go down that rabbit hole at the moment Has anyone here got any clue who that argument debunker is? And what it is?
In one of the last videos of his series on “awakening from the meaning crisis” he talks about Barfield and makes this statement about him being debunked, but I remember being confused at the time and not following how he came to that conclusion. Will have to go back and rewatch to see if there’s any pointers to why he came to this conclusion.
@@michael2l I'll got back and rewatch those AftMC episodes. I'm rewatching his 'Transcendent Naturalism' video now too (the first 25 minutes) looking for some more context and clues. I'm so curious to discover more and I appreciate your interest as well. Please share what you find!
Maybe instead of pursuing intelligence (for power). We should pursue meaningful suffering so that we can mediate and co-suffer well? What is the chief end of Man? To suffer for others...love? What is love? "Baby, don't hurt me"? :)
Re: the book about the Iliad as a collective working through soldiers' PTSD is Achilles in Vietnam.
1:11:39 Bridging the personal & the universal
I would say that the true personal already is. It's a lived universal, a presencing of eternity in one's body. And telling the truth as we see it (what else is there), esp to ourselves, is the way to do this. As I see it.
Re: polarity…….
Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled." -The Kybalion
It's maybe intelligence. It's not imagination. Yes. What Nate is talking about toward the end of the 1:18:00 minute mark.
Intelligence is the imagination. It goes beyond normal everyday intelligence. That’s what barfield is trying to convince the reader. We aren’t confined just to our senses about our intelligence but we can break that barrier and go beyond that. Imagination is intelligence beyond our senses and is a spiritual activity.
@@michaelcarranza6112 Cool. I can get behind that.
Vervaeke’s latest in the series with Henriques (transcendent naturalism) has a part in Barfield. Vervaeke says something like ‘Barfield’s conclusion of final participation is respectable, but his argument to get there has been debunked’. Vervaeke goes on to say he can’t go down that rabbit hole at the moment
Has anyone here got any clue who that argument debunker is? And what it is?
I have heard him say this before. I don't find his account persuasive.
In one of the last videos of his series on “awakening from the meaning crisis” he talks about Barfield and makes this statement about him being debunked, but I remember being confused at the time and not following how he came to that conclusion. Will have to go back and rewatch to see if there’s any pointers to why he came to this conclusion.
@@michael2l I'll got back and rewatch those AftMC episodes. I'm rewatching his 'Transcendent Naturalism' video now too (the first 25 minutes) looking for some more context and clues. I'm so curious to discover more and I appreciate your interest as well. Please share what you find!
1:16:24 "These things are conscious and gonna take us over!"
Not if you know who you are and don't lie to yourself. How could it take you over then?
Around 1:00:00 Is there a meaningful distinction to be made between the virtual and the real?
This is fodder for a series or multiple talks.
Maybe instead of pursuing intelligence (for power). We should pursue meaningful suffering so that we can mediate and co-suffer well?
What is the chief end of Man? To suffer for others...love? What is love? "Baby, don't hurt me"? :)