The beginning of understanding what the Daemon is comes from the obvious and humble realization that humanity is not the pinnacle of evolution, that it doesn't end with us, but that ou older brothers have already gone beyond, transcended the animal kingdom, and now they shepherd us in an analogous manner to how we shepherd the other animals.
It is always wonderful to hear a dialogue between John and someone he often references. This was an excellent inaugural dialogue for the new platform. Thank you John and Charles for meeting and for sharing this 🙏
Charles helped me visit a historic church once by charming the building's guard and using a friend's access card to gain entry into otherwise inaccessible spaces and will forever be a good soul to my eyes. Glad to hear more from both of you together and wishing for more!
Oh wow. I just heard the last remarks made in this video, regarding how important this inquiry around the "daimon" is with regard to the use of (near future?) human/AI interface. I can't tell you how deeply grateful i am that you are shedding light on this!
Re the Daimon. When I lived in a Buddhist Monastery in Sri Lanka, it wasn’t always felt necessary to categorise the Buddhi in the way we tend to in western thought. Buddhi being the awakening of the intuitive faculty, meaning having attained a more direct spiritual perception or awareness. This lead to interesting discussions. That’s because in a holistic world of deep interconnectivity our mind on this Earthly plane of existence can be in resonance with Mind on the heavenly planes of existence since many dimensions of consciousness coexist simultaneously. Mind at that level of Life does not have the same space-time constraints nor necessarily the same clearly defined notions of clear cut Individuality. The intuitive mind Buddhi cannot be said to be restricted to the same sort of linear functionality and I have heard monks talking about the experience of the intuitive mind as being what we would think of as daimon as a guidance that is inherent in Life but dormant within our deeper nature until awoken.
John, What you said at the end of this episode sent shivers through me, because this is exactly what I apprehended would happen when I first heard AGI was on the horizon. Thank you for this series. The timing could not be more pressing.
Blessings John and Charles; thank you both so much. If the imagination is the thought of the heart, then John's heart is awakening in a very important way.
This dialogue was extraordinary, once in a very traumatic experience in an ayahuasca session voice completely different from me was conforting my in my deepest sorrow and confusion.
GREAT conversation. john thanks for your courage in discribing your experience of hermes. it is so refreshing to find an academic this honest about this subject. ithis work goes against the grain of materialism in a very deep way. i have focused in the area for over 10 years and even in the IFS world i have been marginalized for it. can you talk more about pragmatics? how to open these contacts? how to work with negative experiences? you mentioned that there is good cog. sci. around this. can your give a bibliography? who suggested 2ed person relationship with wandering mind? THANKS. WONDERFUL WORK. anlther key idea is the new emerging conception of self. do you have readings on this? isabel clarke in the UK has a theory that the "billiard ball model of mind" is a major problem hampering the treatment of psychosis. her work does not get any attention here.
My experiences with Active Imagination and the mundus imaginalis suggest to me that reality goes well beyond our normal range of perception and is much stranger than we want to think it is. Whatever I encounter in active imagination/the mundus imaginalis, it's not to be toyed with lightly.
40:21 "in popular discourse" I'm glad Charles brought this up: Maybe everyone's so used to seeing the many many ways that diabolical (dividing) oppositional framing in comment's sections (among other places) leads to a discordant fragmentation in understanding what people are saying (via the lens of fixed biases) rather than trying to integrate & understand what people mean
Thanks for sharing John and Charles! at about 1 hour, when you John are speaking about different people receiving different messages from supposedly same imaginal figure... I would suggest that reason is certain "pre-maturity" of awakening of imaginal forces. In terms of "mystery traditions": neophyte should go though preparation phase to "calibrate" imaginal capacities - reason being mostly to control for confusing personal and transjective.
I always look to forward your conversations John. I imagine others I would really enjoy hearing. Lisa Feldman Barrett, Sam Harris. I sense a less than favorable opinion you have with Harris, but I think it would make for great dialogue
Not up to speed on works of Plato, is there a recommended course to get more familiar? Would love it if John were able to teach one out of there were a list of Vervaeke recommended philosophy courses
In Socrates’ dialogue about Zeus’s winged chariot (also known as the divine chariot or the chariot of the gods), beyond the fascinating depiction of the soul’s journey beyond the vault of heaven and its cyclical renewal, there’s an intriguing concept where he suggests that man must choose a god to become his companion. Shortly afterward, Socrates describes an nine-tiered law of destiny, implying that the nature of one’s character is shaped by the god one chooses to follow. These tiers represent various types of people, with the lowest being tyrants (driven by egomania), while the others include figures such as farmers, artists, and poets, among others. I’ll provide a more detailed explanation once I have access to my notes.
@johnvervaeke here is the details about the Zeus’s Winged Chariot (Plato's _Phaedrus_ 247-249) from my notes: [ _Phaedrus_ 248c] *"Becoming a companion to a god"* (θεῷ συνοπαδὸς γενομένη - theōi synopados genomenē) The soul’s closeness to these gods in the celestial hierarchy reflects the degree of truth it has witnessed. Souls that accompany the gods most closely have beheld the highest truths and are destined for reincarnation into more virtuous and enlightened roles. [Phaedrus 248b] He calls this the The Law of Adrasteia (Θεσμός Ἀδραστείας - Thesmos Adrasteias), basically laws of destiny. Here are the nine different tiers of lives or archetypes that a soul may reincarnate into, depending on the degree of truth the soul has witnessed: 1: Philosopher, Lover of Beauty, Musician, Erotic Person 2: Lawful King, Warrior, Leader 3: Politician, Household manager, Businessperson 4: Hardworking Person, Athlete, Healer 5: Prophet, Person Concerned with Sacred Rites 6: Poet, Imitator (mimēsis) 7: Craftsman, Farmer 8: Sophist, Demagogue 9: Tyrant -- Another similar concept is Philo's concept of Supporting Forces (δορυφόροι δυνάμεις - Doryphoros Dynámeis). Alternate translations: Guarding Powers, Attendant Forces, Spear-bearing Forces, Protective Powers [ _On the Migration of Abraham_ §170] "αἵδ’ εἰσὶν αἱ τοῦ βασιλεύειν ἀξίου νοῦ *δορυφόροι δυνάμεις*, ἃς συνέρχεσθαι τῷ βασιλεῖ παραπεμπούσας αὐτὸν θέμις." "These are the *attendant powers* of a mind worthy of kingship, which it is lawful to send along to accompany him as he approaches the king." These "escorting powers" represent spiritual faculties or aspects of the soul that guide and support the ascent to divine contemplation. They could symbolize reason, wisdom, love, and other virtues. It suggests the active, dynamic presence of these virtues within the soul, guiding and accompanying it in the spiritual journey. -- [§173 _De Migratione Abrahami_ ] "ὁ δὲ ἑπόμενος θεῷ κατὰ τἀναγκαῖον συνοδοιπόροις χρῆται τοῖς ἀκολούθοις αὐτοῦ λόγοις, οὓς ὀνομάζειν ἔθος *ἀγγέλους* " "But the one who follows God out of necessity uses as companions the words that follow Him, which it is customary to call *angels* ." --- Also in _De Gigantibus (On the Giants)._ II. §6, Philo also explicitly states Daimones are synonymous with angels: "οὓς ἄλλοι φιλόσοφοι δαίμονας, ἀγγέλους Μωυσῆς εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν· ψυχαὶ δ’ εἰσὶ κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα πετόμεναι" Those beings, whom other philosophers call daimons (δαίμονες - daímones), Moses usually calls angels (ἄγγελοι - ángeloi); and they are souls (ψυχαί - psychái) hovering in the air. -- Philo also discusses them more in detail in _De Confusione Linguarum_ _(On the Confusion of Languages)_ §167-182. Although in this passage, he discusses them more in their relation to God, ie he sorta elucidates their ontological place in the divine hierarchy. §174 "ἔστι δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα ψυχῶν ἀσωμάτων ἱερώτατος χορὸς ὀπαδὸς τῶν οὐρανίων· ἀγγέλους τὰς ψυχὰς ταύτας εἴωθε καλεῖν ὁ θεσπιῳδὸς λόγος" "There is also in the air a most sacred choir of incorporeal souls, attendants of the heavenly beings; the prophetic word (Logos) often calls these souls 'angels'"
John, I cannot say thank you enough for this talk and others related to the topic of the Divine-Double, Ally, Guardian Angel, Daimon, etc. They have been deeply insightful and enlivening for me. When it comes to this reality of encountering the “other,” I am a simple layman who’s been on quite a journey. This work on the Ally or Divine-Double is of great import to me as I have been “wrestling” with the “other” for over 7 years now. It helps me feel less alone. It all began with a spontaneous OBE in 2017 which was brought on by a voice which echoed through the halls of my body as it spoke the words… “God does not meet you where you are. He leads you to where he is.” I immediately found myself both in and out-of-body, my out-of-body self being “lead” by the “other” to a climactic encounter-with/outpouring-of the Divine Light. The proceeding content of this experience was explicitly and intensely “Christian,” the details of which I will leave aside for the sake of brevity. I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian (something I share in common with you) but had already left that worldview behind. This experience obliterated that fundamentalist and altogether inadequate approach to the Divine. I am still primarily Christ-centered in my approach to the Divine as this is the Form inthrough which the Divine disclosed their-self to me. Ever since then, I have had seasons of varying intensity in which I have been overcome and/or compelled from the depths by this “other” (or others) to write and engage in dialogos. The relationship has truly been one of “being led” (oftentimes reluctantly), which fits in with the initiatory phrase spoken over/in me. The content of these dialogues is made up of lessons/teachings, fairy-tale like stories, conversations, images, some (if not most) of which are beyond my ability to fully comprehend. As I contemplate it all, I feel that all of these are towards a fuller comprehension of my Self, and that I am not supposed to or able to comprehend them. It’s as if my gift in all of this is not to understand, but to be understood. For about year I did not really know how to think deeply about what was happening to me, until I came upon the Jungian practice of “Active Imagination” through my exposure to Jung via Jordan Petersons online lectures. This finally provided me with a framework for understanding and engaging with what was happening. What was once a unidirectional flood of information/lectures turned into a dialogical process. The engagements with the other are imbued with an oftentimes overpowering sense of urgency. Forgive me for the imperfection and incompleteness of the ideas I am about to disclose. It appears as though whoever the “other” is, the dialogical practice is actually a process of “incarnating” or “embedding” this “other.” It is a “drawing down” of something Eternal into the consciousness of the Now, the “Now” being the only Reality shared both by Time and Eternity. This transcendent “other” is being a “God-Image” of sorts. Symbolically speaking, it seems as though that this humanity is the Cross, the intersection of the Horizontal and the Vertical, Time and Eternity, Forgetting and Remembering. This Cross is a vehicle for the realization/redemption of this transcendent “other,” which is actually the Truth for which this humanity is meant. The humanity (cross) is the means of “glorification” (shining forth) through humiliation. This Cross, is for the humiliation of my Self/God-Image in order that I may escape Death and Hades, Ignorance and forgetfulness, brought on by deceitful-desires, pride, and the delusions of grandeur that I might be “the One,” so that I can actually live, move, and have my Being in the Truth of my Self in Agape, so I can live in the Eden of Theos that Now is open to my Self by means of the Cross (this Humanity). In Truth, my “Self” is simply one among many, and the mortality of this humanity proves this fact to my Self. This Humanity bears and communicates all the consequences of both right and wrong-action to my Self. So this humanity is the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil for my Self. This humanity is also Jesus hanging from the Cross, which is the Fruit of Tree of Life/Wisdom for my Self, not just food, but the medicine of immortality. All immortals need a cure for their plight, do they not? “Theos became Anthropos that Anthropos may become Theos.” This humanity is Cross, it is Tomb, Womb, Temple, Ark. Veil, Hades, Paradise, so on and so forth, it is potentially all of these things to the Truth of my Self in Agape. But it is always I who must choose my path forward. I am free to choose and reap every con-sequence. As you can see, the language I have come to adopt in my feeble attempts to explain the process which has undertaken me is oftentimes very “Christian” though not exclusively, nor is it “traditional” in its implications. I my self, by no means find much affiliation with any branch of the “Ecclesia” and know that my “out-there” perspectives would find no place of acceptance in “Christianity” at large. This is because I have come to view the propositional content of Christianity to be a symbolic mapping of an experiential reality really accessible through an “ecology of practices” (as you say) that activates a very Real process (the Anthropos meaning Theos for others) of self-transformation/healing. This dialogical engagement seems to be not just “one among many” but perhaps the critical practice on the journey into the Heart of Reality. From the inside of it, the telos of this practice/process seems to be one which leads to a “resurrection” of the “God-Image,” out of Hades (concealment/forgetfulness). This humanity is a “living sacrifice” for the sake of realizing this God-Image and requires willing participation, diligent engagement, and unconditional surrender to That which is Being-Realized/Remembered inthrough the process. It seems to be a process of coming to know/realize the Alethiea of one’s Self (God-Image) in Agape. This involves a simultaneous move from the “other” which knows/realizes us as being in them. When we gaze down into ourselves, we can see and engage with our parts. But when we do this, our downwards gaze seems to simultaneously invite/draw-down the gaze of the “other” that is above us, the unknown “other” of which we are or may become a “part.” “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” 1 Corinthians 13:12 “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ (God-Image) who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Galatians 2:20 All of that to say, it is a relief to hear others speak of similar experiences. There is more to Life than meets the eye. I know I am going out on a limb putting all of this out there. Perhaps it will provide someone else understanding for their own path, and perhaps I will receive some feedback from others who’ve have similar experiences/beliefs. Considering there is not a single soul I know personally to whom I can relate these ideas or ongoing experiences to, I sincerely thank you, again, for these discussions. I feel like I belong when I get to listen in. Forgive me for being long winded. Theos bless you, Wayne P. S. Something that may be of interest to you. Valentinian Christianity had a developed theology of “Redemption” which included a concept of what’s called the “Bridal Chamber” (another name for the Holy of Holies) in which the human soul (Bride) would be wedded to its Angel/divine-double (Groom). More on this at the link below: www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Joined_Angel.htm
I also want to say that I really appreciate your mentioning that there is a pareto distribution among people when it comes to imaginal capacity, all the way from Jung to, say, people with clinical aphantasia and the latter may require some affording frameworks/facilitation.
Not sure if you caught it, but John does mention that the creator of IFS says he has aphantasia. So it’s not a Pareto distribution, or even a linear spectrum, it’s just different capacities figuring out different techniques.
The conception of daimonion is in modern term, logos and conscience. It is essential core of moral practice that is authentic autonomy, which Dr.Vervaeke focuses on spirituality. Our life moral decisions we often betray something, or when invisible place, we tempted to behave against virtue, it would be self-controlled by the conception of daimonion. It is not only theological term, just ethical term, anyone can refer to build their own moral basis of decision making. If we have attitude to maintain it as primary virtue, our community would be better place we can live with. The passways of life, we sometimes face with crisis of meaning, things are aligned into certain ways only, it would be together, it is powerful. However, people who have been isolated by others's will, it would be warranted by our effort to express their daimonion in mind.
1:07:45 I'd straight up feel jealous. 😊 Then I would have to recall training and reasons and blah blah. Never double down your efforts, take the hit. It's good for the soul.
If a property is different enough from one's self-perception, yet has a self-nature, it can form an entity with it's own (hazy) internal social boundry, where words feel originating from the entity itself, than conciously put upon. As limitation reduces its formation chance, the entity removes human pragmatism likely giving it the spirit/daimon interpretation. The benefit of the entity depends on the internal barrier by which it formed on to what the relation with the entity connects.
Like so many other concepts that were borrowed by the ancient Greeks from Mazdayasna and other Persian wisdom traditions, Socrates's "daimon" was a re-telling/re-tooling of the winged Fravashi, an image that I'm sure you're familiar with (easily found Wikipedia if not). Socrates probably learned about the Fravashi while fighting in the wars against Persia, then borrowed the notion to fit the psychological setting of his culture, using the word "daimon" in place of "Fravashi." Now, many mistake the humanlike figure in the center of an image of the Fravashi for Ahura Mazda (Lord Wisdom), but, in fact, the Fravashi represents not the Good Creator itself, but a localized recapitualation of Mazda (Wisdom) within each individual fashioned in that Deity's image and likeness. The Fravashi, or Higher Self, a microcosmic recapitulation of Lord Wisdom (Ahura Mazda) is represented by the human figure in the center reconciling the dual forces of the two wings on its left and right side. The Higher Self favors the right sight where Spenta Mainyu propels it higher, countering and completing the Ahriman force, which is behind the human figure. Remember Jesus's words: "Get behind me, Satan."
Charles has too much to lose, which makes this rather timid investigation. 01:08:00 See the problem is that VanderKlay's question comes from subject-object ontology. In your transjective ontology, the answer should be immediately clear: there are no two Hermeses; there is one Hermes and he speak to each differently. You hear what you need to hear from Hermes. You co-determine the nature of what's relevant in the interaction. The interaction is made up of two bodies but what is perceptible is only the interaction - not the "disentangled" bodies (since on relational-ontological view no such thing can exist since all exists through its relation to other "things"?).
1:13:10 people can worry about the lines that separate objective from subjective. I dont think peoplenproperly understand the relationship, which im forming a hypthesis of interdependence. Objective perceptions and objects are localised in our surroundings and work as a vessel for subjective awareness, entangled in a sense of the experience. From subjective experience and awareness we update, refeame, and relabel the objects and objective sense employed in later interactions. Some learning alters our responsivity, and some our objectivity. There are lots of ways to explain that we do not get to experience things directly, but not here. It does seem that events, nature calls for a responsiveness and things go through our neurology on this relational basis. My visualisations see objective and subjective rusing up and parting at angles.both are contained within streams of emphasis and resonance. I have only begun looking into this and spookily or not, began sketching this out an hour or two before hearing this.
It seems to me that all current psychological, philosophical or theological inquiries continually stumble over the same question: "What the H_ll do we MEAN when we say " I "?!
It would be very hard for me to follow John down this path of I hadn't study a lot of his other work. It's alien to think about empirically. It's definitely something that could be "hijacked" and used to radicalize or justify some sort of pseudo religion.
Not sure who said this but, what Charles mentioned about the importance of understanding the Daimon now, Christianity practice Goetia not Theurgy, it is transactional in asking for forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ, completing giving up the Theurgic action of Embodying Deity, Hermes or Christ. Faith in the Church's power not the activity of being the God, embodying the activity of the god, being part of the work of creation. This is why Christianity, in my opinion, is a Heresy and as Proclus said, a "collective social disease," and a "natural disaster."
Flesh and blood come here in front and remind! Lord are not thy enemies! But these principalities exalted themselves above thee! Who deceiveth and murderers as Gods of men in front of thee!
Connect with a community dedicated to self-discovery and purpose, and gain deeper insights. Support us on Patreon. 👉 www.patreon.com/johnvervaeke
The daimon is an endlessly fascinating topic. Love it.
The beginning of understanding what the Daemon is comes from the obvious and humble realization that humanity is not the pinnacle of evolution, that it doesn't end with us, but that ou older brothers have already gone beyond, transcended the animal kingdom, and now they shepherd us in an analogous manner to how we shepherd the other animals.
I hope you talk to Bernardo Kastrup in this series! He has a book on the Daimon coming out next year
It is always wonderful to hear a dialogue between John and someone he often references. This was an excellent inaugural dialogue for the new platform. Thank you John and Charles for meeting and for sharing this 🙏
Charles helped me visit a historic church once by charming the building's guard and using a friend's access card to gain entry into otherwise inaccessible spaces and will forever be a good soul to my eyes. Glad to hear more from both of you together and wishing for more!
Oh wow. I just heard the last remarks made in this video, regarding how important this inquiry around the "daimon" is with regard to the use of (near future?) human/AI interface. I can't tell you how deeply grateful i am that you are shedding light on this!
37:37 "THANK YOU FOR WATCHING" legitimately startled me. It was like a gratitude jump scare lol
Re the Daimon.
When I lived in a Buddhist Monastery in Sri Lanka, it wasn’t always felt necessary to categorise the Buddhi in the way we tend to in western thought. Buddhi being the awakening of the intuitive faculty, meaning having attained a more direct spiritual perception or awareness. This lead to interesting discussions.
That’s because in a holistic world of deep interconnectivity our mind on this Earthly plane of existence can be in resonance with Mind on the heavenly planes of existence since many dimensions of consciousness coexist simultaneously.
Mind at that level of Life does not have the same space-time constraints nor necessarily the same clearly defined notions of clear cut Individuality. The intuitive mind Buddhi cannot be said to be restricted to the same sort of linear functionality and I have heard monks talking about the experience of the intuitive mind as being what we would think of as daimon as a guidance that is inherent in Life but dormant within our deeper nature until awoken.
John, What you said at the end of this episode sent shivers through me, because this is exactly what I apprehended would happen when I first heard AGI was on the horizon. Thank you for this series. The timing could not be more pressing.
Blessings John and Charles; thank you both so much. If the imagination is the thought of the heart, then John's heart is awakening in a very important way.
This dialogue was extraordinary, once in a very traumatic experience in an ayahuasca session voice completely different from me was conforting my in my deepest sorrow and confusion.
GREAT conversation. john thanks for your courage in discribing your experience of hermes. it is so refreshing to find an academic this honest about this subject. ithis work goes against the grain of materialism in a very deep way. i have focused in the area for over 10 years and even in the IFS world i have been marginalized for it. can you talk more about pragmatics? how to open these contacts? how to work with negative experiences? you mentioned that there is good cog. sci. around this. can your give a bibliography? who suggested 2ed person relationship with wandering mind? THANKS. WONDERFUL WORK. anlther key idea is the new emerging conception of self.
do you have readings on this? isabel clarke in the UK has a theory that the "billiard ball model of mind" is a major problem hampering the treatment of psychosis.
her work does not get any attention here.
My Host Charles thank you for coming in front!
My experiences with Active Imagination and the mundus imaginalis suggest to me that reality goes well beyond our normal range of perception and is much stranger than we want to think it is. Whatever I encounter in active imagination/the mundus imaginalis, it's not to be toyed with lightly.
40:21 "in popular discourse"
I'm glad Charles brought this up: Maybe everyone's so used to seeing the many many ways that diabolical (dividing) oppositional framing in comment's sections (among other places) leads to a discordant fragmentation in understanding what people are saying (via the lens of fixed biases) rather than trying to integrate & understand what people mean
37:39 what's that sudden "Thank You for watching" right in the middle of the video?
yeah, it spooks me every time lmao
it's just meant to be a CTA for the patreon, but it sounds like the video is ending bc of john's delivery 😂
Marvelous ❤ Thank You, John
Thanks for exploring this topic John!!
Excellent lecture! Thank you so much John!
Would be great to see John and Kastrup speaking of the daimonion as they both seem to have converged with their interest on the subject!
Thanks for sharing John and Charles!
at about 1 hour, when you John are speaking about different people receiving different messages from supposedly same imaginal figure... I would suggest that reason is certain "pre-maturity" of awakening of imaginal forces. In terms of "mystery traditions": neophyte should go though preparation phase to "calibrate" imaginal capacities - reason being mostly to control for confusing personal and transjective.
I always look to forward your conversations John. I imagine others I would really enjoy hearing. Lisa Feldman Barrett, Sam Harris. I sense a less than favorable opinion you have with Harris, but I think it would make for great dialogue
I agree :) Great stuff John
Not up to speed on works of Plato, is there a recommended course to get more familiar? Would love it if John were able to teach one out of there were a list of Vervaeke recommended philosophy courses
In Socrates’ dialogue about Zeus’s winged chariot (also known as the divine chariot or the chariot of the gods), beyond the fascinating depiction of the soul’s journey beyond the vault of heaven and its cyclical renewal, there’s an intriguing concept where he suggests that man must choose a god to become his companion.
Shortly afterward, Socrates describes an nine-tiered law of destiny, implying that the nature of one’s character is shaped by the god one chooses to follow. These tiers represent various types of people, with the lowest being tyrants (driven by egomania), while the others include figures such as farmers, artists, and poets, among others.
I’ll provide a more detailed explanation once I have access to my notes.
@johnvervaeke here is the details about the Zeus’s Winged Chariot (Plato's _Phaedrus_ 247-249) from my notes:
[ _Phaedrus_ 248c]
*"Becoming a companion to a god"*
(θεῷ συνοπαδὸς γενομένη - theōi synopados genomenē)
The soul’s closeness to these gods in the celestial hierarchy reflects the degree of truth it has witnessed. Souls that accompany the gods most closely have beheld the highest truths and are destined for reincarnation into more virtuous and enlightened roles. [Phaedrus 248b] He calls this the The Law of Adrasteia (Θεσμός Ἀδραστείας - Thesmos Adrasteias), basically laws of destiny.
Here are the nine different tiers of lives or archetypes that a soul may reincarnate into, depending on the degree of truth the soul has witnessed:
1: Philosopher, Lover of Beauty, Musician, Erotic Person
2: Lawful King, Warrior, Leader
3: Politician, Household manager, Businessperson
4: Hardworking Person, Athlete, Healer
5: Prophet, Person Concerned with Sacred Rites
6: Poet, Imitator (mimēsis)
7: Craftsman, Farmer
8: Sophist, Demagogue
9: Tyrant
--
Another similar concept is Philo's concept of Supporting Forces (δορυφόροι δυνάμεις - Doryphoros Dynámeis).
Alternate translations: Guarding Powers, Attendant Forces, Spear-bearing Forces, Protective Powers
[ _On the Migration of Abraham_ §170]
"αἵδ’ εἰσὶν αἱ τοῦ βασιλεύειν ἀξίου νοῦ *δορυφόροι δυνάμεις*, ἃς συνέρχεσθαι τῷ βασιλεῖ παραπεμπούσας αὐτὸν θέμις."
"These are the *attendant powers* of a mind worthy of kingship, which it is lawful to send along to accompany him as he approaches the king."
These "escorting powers" represent spiritual faculties or aspects of the soul that guide and support the ascent to divine contemplation.
They could symbolize reason, wisdom, love, and other virtues.
It suggests the active, dynamic presence of these virtues within the soul, guiding and accompanying it in the spiritual journey.
--
[§173 _De Migratione Abrahami_ ]
"ὁ δὲ ἑπόμενος θεῷ κατὰ τἀναγκαῖον συνοδοιπόροις χρῆται τοῖς ἀκολούθοις αὐτοῦ λόγοις, οὓς ὀνομάζειν ἔθος *ἀγγέλους* "
"But the one who follows God out of necessity uses as companions the words that follow Him, which it is customary to call *angels* ."
---
Also in _De Gigantibus (On the Giants)._ II. §6, Philo also explicitly states Daimones are synonymous with angels:
"οὓς ἄλλοι φιλόσοφοι δαίμονας, ἀγγέλους Μωυσῆς εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν· ψυχαὶ δ’ εἰσὶ κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα πετόμεναι"
Those beings, whom other philosophers call daimons (δαίμονες - daímones), Moses usually calls angels (ἄγγελοι - ángeloi); and they are souls (ψυχαί - psychái) hovering in the air.
--
Philo also discusses them more in detail in _De Confusione Linguarum_ _(On the Confusion of Languages)_ §167-182. Although in this passage, he discusses them more in their relation to God, ie he sorta elucidates their ontological place in the divine hierarchy.
§174
"ἔστι δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα ψυχῶν ἀσωμάτων ἱερώτατος χορὸς ὀπαδὸς τῶν οὐρανίων· ἀγγέλους τὰς ψυχὰς ταύτας εἴωθε καλεῖν ὁ θεσπιῳδὸς λόγος"
"There is also in the air a most sacred choir of incorporeal souls, attendants of the heavenly beings; the prophetic word (Logos) often calls these souls 'angels'"
As HE is lifted up! Will draws all men unto HIM!
Yes, even these principalities seating upon! Remember what is a Seat?
Pop John why my time sent forth? Indeed increased in knowledge along the way in front!
What's the music at the beginning?
Pop John who's waking with thee? Many have searched for the most precious treasures!
Thank you
John,
I cannot say thank you enough for this talk and others related to the topic of the Divine-Double, Ally, Guardian Angel, Daimon, etc. They have been deeply insightful and enlivening for me. When it comes to this reality of encountering the “other,” I am a simple layman who’s been on quite a journey. This work on the Ally or Divine-Double is of great import to me as I have been “wrestling” with the “other” for over 7 years now. It helps me feel less alone.
It all began with a spontaneous OBE in 2017 which was brought on by a voice which echoed through the halls of my body as it spoke the words…
“God does not meet you where you are.
He leads you to where he is.”
I immediately found myself both in and out-of-body, my out-of-body self being “lead” by the “other” to a climactic encounter-with/outpouring-of the Divine Light. The proceeding content of this experience was explicitly and intensely “Christian,” the details of which I will leave aside for the sake of brevity.
I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian (something I share in common with you) but had already left that worldview behind. This experience obliterated that fundamentalist and altogether inadequate approach to the Divine. I am still primarily Christ-centered in my approach to the Divine as this is the Form inthrough which the Divine disclosed their-self to me.
Ever since then, I have had seasons of varying intensity in which I have been overcome and/or compelled from the depths by this “other” (or others) to write and engage in dialogos. The relationship has truly been one of “being led” (oftentimes reluctantly), which fits in with the initiatory phrase spoken over/in me.
The content of these dialogues is made up of lessons/teachings, fairy-tale like stories, conversations, images, some (if not most) of which are beyond my ability to fully comprehend. As I contemplate it all, I feel that all of these are towards a fuller comprehension of my Self, and that I am not supposed to or able to comprehend them.
It’s as if my gift in all of this is not to understand, but to be understood.
For about year I did not really know how to think deeply about what was happening to me, until I came upon the Jungian practice of “Active Imagination” through my exposure to Jung via Jordan Petersons online lectures. This finally provided me with a framework for understanding and engaging with what was happening. What was once a unidirectional flood of information/lectures turned into a dialogical process.
The engagements with the other are imbued with an oftentimes overpowering sense of urgency.
Forgive me for the imperfection and incompleteness of the ideas I am about to disclose.
It appears as though whoever the “other” is, the dialogical practice is actually a process of “incarnating” or “embedding” this “other.” It is a “drawing down” of something Eternal into the consciousness of the Now, the “Now” being the only Reality shared both by Time and Eternity. This transcendent “other” is being a “God-Image” of sorts.
Symbolically speaking, it seems as though that this humanity is the Cross, the intersection of the Horizontal and the Vertical, Time and Eternity, Forgetting and Remembering. This Cross is a vehicle for the realization/redemption of this transcendent “other,” which is actually the Truth for which this humanity is meant. The humanity (cross) is the means of “glorification” (shining forth) through humiliation.
This Cross, is for the humiliation of my Self/God-Image in order that I may escape Death and Hades, Ignorance and forgetfulness, brought on by deceitful-desires, pride, and the delusions of grandeur that I might be “the One,” so that I can actually live, move, and have my Being in the Truth of my Self in Agape, so I can live in the Eden of Theos that Now is open to my Self by means of the Cross (this Humanity).
In Truth, my “Self” is simply one among many, and the mortality of this humanity proves this fact to my Self. This Humanity bears and communicates all the consequences of both right and wrong-action to my Self. So this humanity is the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil for my Self.
This humanity is also Jesus hanging from the Cross, which is the Fruit of Tree of Life/Wisdom for my Self, not just food, but the medicine of immortality.
All immortals need a cure for their plight, do they not?
“Theos became Anthropos that Anthropos may become Theos.”
This humanity is Cross, it is Tomb, Womb, Temple, Ark. Veil, Hades, Paradise, so on and so forth, it is potentially all of these things to the Truth of my Self in Agape. But it is always I who must choose my path forward. I am free to choose and reap every con-sequence.
As you can see, the language I have come to adopt in my feeble attempts to explain the process which has undertaken me is oftentimes very “Christian” though not exclusively, nor is it “traditional” in its implications. I my self, by no means find much affiliation with any branch of the “Ecclesia” and know that my “out-there” perspectives would find no place of acceptance in “Christianity” at large. This is because I have come to view the propositional content of Christianity to be a symbolic mapping of an experiential reality really accessible through an “ecology of practices” (as you say) that activates a very Real process (the Anthropos meaning Theos for others) of self-transformation/healing. This dialogical engagement seems to be not just “one among many” but perhaps the critical practice on the journey into the Heart of Reality.
From the inside of it, the telos of this practice/process seems to be one which leads to a “resurrection” of the “God-Image,” out of Hades (concealment/forgetfulness). This humanity is a “living sacrifice” for the sake of realizing this God-Image and requires willing participation, diligent engagement, and unconditional surrender to That which is Being-Realized/Remembered inthrough the process.
It seems to be a process of coming to know/realize the Alethiea of one’s Self (God-Image) in Agape. This involves a simultaneous move from the “other” which knows/realizes us as being in them.
When we gaze down into ourselves, we can see and engage with our parts. But when we do this, our downwards gaze seems to simultaneously invite/draw-down the gaze of the “other” that is above us, the unknown “other” of which we are or may become a “part.”
“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”
1 Corinthians 13:12
“I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ (God-Image) who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
Galatians 2:20
All of that to say, it is a relief to hear others speak of similar experiences. There is more to Life than meets the eye.
I know I am going out on a limb putting all of this out there. Perhaps it will provide someone else understanding for their own path, and perhaps I will receive some feedback from others who’ve have similar experiences/beliefs.
Considering there is not a single soul I know personally to whom I can relate these ideas or ongoing experiences to, I sincerely thank you, again, for these discussions. I feel like I belong when I get to listen in.
Forgive me for being long winded.
Theos bless you,
Wayne
P. S. Something that may be of interest to you. Valentinian Christianity had a developed theology of “Redemption” which included a concept of what’s called the “Bridal Chamber” (another name for the Holy of Holies) in which the human soul (Bride) would be wedded to its Angel/divine-double (Groom).
More on this at the link below:
www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Joined_Angel.htm
I also want to say that I really appreciate your mentioning that there is a pareto distribution among people when it comes to imaginal capacity, all the way from Jung to, say, people with clinical aphantasia and the latter may require some affording frameworks/facilitation.
Not sure if you caught it, but John does mention that the creator of IFS says he has aphantasia. So it’s not a Pareto distribution, or even a linear spectrum, it’s just different capacities figuring out different techniques.
Is the zeitgeist a shared daimon?
The conception of daimonion is in modern term, logos and conscience. It is essential core of moral practice that is authentic autonomy, which Dr.Vervaeke focuses on spirituality.
Our life moral decisions we often betray something, or when invisible place, we tempted to behave against virtue, it would be self-controlled by the conception of daimonion.
It is not only theological term, just ethical term, anyone can refer to build their own moral basis of decision making.
If we have attitude to maintain it as primary virtue, our community would be better place we can live with.
The passways of life, we sometimes face with crisis of meaning, things are aligned into certain ways only, it would be together, it is powerful.
However, people who have been isolated by others's will, it would be warranted by our effort to express their daimonion in mind.
Through HIM, by HIM, and for HIM!
Considering
...The Platonic Daimonium.... felt, heard and visualized as ...Guard, Guide and Guru.... coming forth and going forward in Shadow Work.
10:42 Does “ongoing dialogical practice with Hermes…” mean you pray to Hermes? (Serious question)
1:07:45 I'd straight up feel jealous. 😊 Then I would have to recall training and reasons and blah blah. Never double down your efforts, take the hit. It's good for the soul.
Me to my Daimon: "Thank you for watching."
If a property is different enough from one's self-perception, yet has a self-nature, it can form an entity with it's own (hazy) internal social boundry, where words feel originating from the entity itself, than conciously put upon. As limitation reduces its formation chance, the entity removes human pragmatism likely giving it the spirit/daimon interpretation. The benefit of the entity depends on the internal barrier by which it formed on to what the relation with the entity connects.
Pop John even trying to reach HIS HEIGHT!
Like so many other concepts that were borrowed by the ancient Greeks from Mazdayasna and other Persian wisdom traditions, Socrates's "daimon" was a re-telling/re-tooling of the winged Fravashi, an image that I'm sure you're familiar with (easily found Wikipedia if not). Socrates probably learned about the Fravashi while fighting in the wars against Persia, then borrowed the notion to fit the psychological setting of his culture, using the word "daimon" in place of "Fravashi."
Now, many mistake the humanlike figure in the center of an image of the Fravashi for Ahura Mazda (Lord Wisdom), but, in fact, the Fravashi represents not the Good Creator itself, but a localized recapitualation of Mazda (Wisdom) within each individual fashioned in that Deity's image and likeness.
The Fravashi, or Higher Self, a microcosmic recapitulation of Lord Wisdom (Ahura Mazda) is represented by the human figure in the center reconciling the dual forces of the two wings on its left and right side. The Higher Self favors the right sight where Spenta Mainyu propels it higher, countering and completing the Ahriman force, which is behind the human figure. Remember Jesus's words: "Get behind me, Satan."
Time knows Aims given? And unto Whom belongs?
Charles has too much to lose, which makes this rather timid investigation.
01:08:00 See the problem is that VanderKlay's question comes from subject-object ontology. In your transjective ontology, the answer should be immediately clear: there are no two Hermeses; there is one Hermes and he speak to each differently. You hear what you need to hear from Hermes. You co-determine the nature of what's relevant in the interaction. The interaction is made up of two bodies but what is perceptible is only the interaction - not the "disentangled" bodies (since on relational-ontological view no such thing can exist since all exists through its relation to other "things"?).
Was Moses seing/talking to Daimon with the "burning bush"? Did Zipporah also see a Daimon when she saved Moses' life?
1:13:10 people can worry about the lines that separate objective from subjective. I dont think peoplenproperly understand the relationship, which im forming a hypthesis of interdependence.
Objective perceptions and objects are localised in our surroundings and work as a vessel for subjective awareness, entangled in a sense of the experience. From subjective experience and awareness we update, refeame, and relabel the objects and objective sense employed in later interactions. Some learning alters our responsivity, and some our objectivity.
There are lots of ways to explain that we do not get to experience things directly, but not here. It does seem that events, nature calls for a responsiveness and things go through our neurology on this relational basis.
My visualisations see objective and subjective rusing up and parting at angles.both are contained within streams of emphasis and resonance. I have only begun looking into this and spookily or not, began sketching this out an hour or two before hearing this.
Students shared "i" Am will say, consumed knows belongs? In front of HIM!
It seems to me that all current psychological, philosophical or theological inquiries continually stumble over the same question: "What the H_ll do we MEAN when we say " I "?!
Oliver will wait right here! Holding a Basket of bread and a fish! Sitteth by the springs of living waters
Some will say, why all HIS shared "i" Am students not being consumed?
Principalities who deceiveth and murderers have put curses upon one another in front! Where all thy seats came from?
It would be very hard for me to follow John down this path of I hadn't study a lot of his other work. It's alien to think about empirically. It's definitely something that could be "hijacked" and used to radicalize or justify some sort of pseudo religion.
Pop John separation from able to have sincere conversations with thee pop John! Pop John imagine separated from thee!
So what's your deal?
Pop John the evidence from the past! Cast down!
Not sure who said this but, what Charles mentioned about the importance of understanding the Daimon now, Christianity practice Goetia not Theurgy, it is transactional in asking for forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ, completing giving up the Theurgic action of Embodying Deity, Hermes or Christ. Faith in the Church's power not the activity of being the God, embodying the activity of the god, being part of the work of creation. This is why Christianity, in my opinion, is a Heresy and as Proclus said, a "collective social disease," and a "natural disaster."
In Vajrayana this is why taking the Bodhisatva Vow is important, as is Generating Bodhicitta at the beginning of a meditation of Puja.
"The ancient world was more aware of this phenomena"
What is No? What is Yes? Remember outside of these is from the Evil one. Will face to face!
Flesh and blood come here in front and remind! Lord are not thy enemies! But these principalities exalted themselves above thee! Who deceiveth and murderers as Gods of men in front of thee!
Prepared the way for the little child born "i" Am.
814
Wise and Scribes will say, who's child is HE? 2 Edges Sword came in front! Our Son of Man and all HE adopted Sons!
Foundations not recognized!
Adopted Sons!
Noone can pluck away!
Pop John according to their wanting reasons belongs under my Feet! Now making noises!
Why students? Lord our Names exist in front of thee! Indeed
Pop John will say, why HE calls me pop? Remember as respect unto HIS elders! Even though HE has 1 "Am" Father God of life of the Living!
Pop John who said, for thy Son to dip HIS FINGER to a living water to quench Who's tongue? Underfoot making noises!
Holy Angels will say, remember seeing HIS FACE will be consumed!
Time who ye will say, who "i" Am? Father God of the Living!
Likewise the Son of Man will not always be a Son! But to become a FATHER!
Time come here in front and remind! Lord! Why call Who Lord?
I look at this as a kind of felt experience that the daemon in humans directs. Some people are not in touch with their daemon except in their dreams.
Now, will ye blame the Son of man to cast down these principalities will fall like lightning in front?
How? Lord thy shared "i" Am! Love you too!
Seats come here in front and remind! Lord from thy Seat!
Where Yeshua Jesus Christ came to pray at the MOUNT OF OLIVE.
Who's is that making noises? To warn! Warning! Warning! Warning!
Yeshua Jesus Christ will say, is the Olive...REAL?