To me, this is the best thing on TH-cam. The fact that a conversation At this level is not only happening- but that you are generous enough to post it online, is incredible.
John and Jordan, thank you for making this conversation public; thus offering ways to open our worldview to the shift happening in the zeitgeist. It inspires me to make my own contribution in the same direction. Please keep at it, recommend us to the right places so we can uncover the path forward, together.
Great conversation I love the meaning of Metanoia we use this in our classical homeschooling circles towards education it means "a change of mind" some people look at it as repentance. But it is NOT meant as we moderns think of same, guilt or regret. It refers to making a decision to turn around and face a new direction. I used to think the world was flat then I encounter Metanoia and I realize the world is round.
Like the best of the classics, this dialogue rewards repeat listening. Ten months since I first listen to this, and after hearing many of you gentlemen’s subsequent dialogues, I am listening to this in a new height. Thanks for laying down this stairway of anagoge!
Thank you both for a very interesting discussion that had me both nodding in agreement in places and digging deeper within my own areas of greatest expertise to extrapolate, elaborate, riff and question. Keep doin what you’re doing
Thank you both for your faithfulness to this critical Shift to rediscover our inner relationship with the Divine, and a true universal brotherhood of joy based on falling in love with life again. We open to the consciousness of all the ascended and corporal Masters, and feel the livingness of this thought form of the RNR (religion that's not a religion) now radiating and evoking all visionary hearts to come co-create!
Real time translation and articulation of the participatory (or felt realm). John's presence and dialogue, triggers something deep within Jordan (or the space between John and Jordan), which he takes a moment to ask "what is that thing?"..ah, yes...that's it!" And then speaks the proposition, as it has just expressed from participatory, into the perspectival, into the procedural, and finally at the propositional!
There is a joy I get in watching them hash this out even as I think there are parts that a bit tortured. It is as if I’m watching two musicians work out the grammar of a new jazz and they are inviting us into the basement to watch the unfinished messy process and the vulnerability of the places where the (very few) clashing chords remain to be worked out, like being on the creative set of a Pixar movie honing the rough work into true art. And in part it is because of this traversing the whole stack from participatory thru propositional and back again. And I also just watched the talk with John, Mary Kochan and JP Marceau, and the feeling is so different. It is as if Mary can’t or won’t proceed past the propositional. I do not fault her her that, I want to be clear, and even so it pains me. I suddenly just now recall the scene in What Dreams May Come where Robin William’s character is in hell with his wife and she can’t see him, and he finally realizes that she can’t, and so he declares that he will forsake heaven then in order to stay with her and that wakes her from her isolation. It is a beautiful scene. I feel like John and Mary got to that scene and Mary thought she was trying to save John, but John can see Mary and is not asking for her to remain with him, but he wants to remain and being light to all those in this place who has forgotten their forgetting. It felt so utterly anti-climatic for me, and again not to claim that anyone should have done anything different.
And after I posted this, the notion of the television series The Good Place comes to mind, and the idea that good can be done even in the afterlife is something that feels to some like a saving grace, and to those who respect tradition as a travesty. Will that the depth of this unresolvable koan break our minds wide open so that we are not entrapped by our devotion to understanding.
Great conversation, though I would like you to dive deeper. For example, the "evolving spiraling upward way" is part of the Christian metaphysics.Consider ejecting that frame (its not a frame that Daoism has, where more emphasis is on enduring coherence through directionless change). Also the notion of "there is no god" has subtly been replaced with the sense that "there is a blueprint" by science and secular humanism, akin to Kant's introjection of Hegel's Spirit into the rational mind. What is meaning without a blueprint, and change without progression? Also there is a sense in this conversation of the "goal" being somewhere else -- up there, or in the future state, versus perceiving what is always already here, and asking what is possible from here? There is a sense with the way John gets excited, of a child like energy before Christmas -- that something is just around the corner. These are all axial age dynamics, that I believe are defining characteristics of "religion" as we know it. What is a post- axial religio? That's what I would like to see emerging.
Regarding the collapse of innovation and general systems collapse, this is why I have been saying to my husband for quite a while that the reigning Fable of our time is the one about the killing of the goose that laid the golden egg. I see it happening all around me.
Regarding the Christianity part… to me, it seems like what they wanted to say to Christians could be imparted to them in their language more strongly like this: "Do not worry Christian Men, in this religion we are talking about ("Religion that is Not a religion")… in its scriptures the first thing it is going to say is that you Christian people (among few others) are the first ones that are absolved. You are the ones that brought us all here to this salvation point. You did the best WE could. You (and a couple of others) are not only our saviors - but you are also our the first ones that are saved. We (and all the generations that come after) we'll remember you always like the ones that enabled us, created us. And while we had to make this paradigm shift, this Religion that is Not a Religion, that surpasses and encompasses you, we remember you as true enough, yours was efficient enough, adaptive enough - YOU got us here... you are one of US."
The moment truth becomes organized, it becomes untrue. At one point in this talk, Johnny Vee corrected himself and changed his use of the word "faith" to "faithfulness" and I thought: "oh, I like that. That us really important." I learned so much from watching these two...utterly amazing! Please keep sharing... It feels like its a road trip and I'm in the back seat listening to the adults talk.
Yes, ubi must be combined with a deep safety net that addresses all material , health and psychological needs. This is where the two Hanzi Freinacht books really shine in my view.
A very interesting discussion so I thank you two for sharing it. Although there are many aspects of the conversation that I could comment on the one that struck me the most as you were speaking towards the end was the idea that your comments did not seem to take into account individual agency and intentionality. In the end your religion that's not a religion is going to have to have a center. Without it you will end up with a hodgepodge of psycho Technologies that people will pick and choose from like a buffet and ultimately never fully endorse the metaphysics of the Enterprise.
@Forever Jung humans need an ultimate point of relevance that transcends their own story. That is what I would call the center. Something Universal that everyone can circumambulate around. Without it you will have no cohesion no communitas.
@@daneracamosa This seems like quite an interesting conundrum, because a lot of these conversations focus on not ending at some ultimate (declarative) truth, and rather continuing to ask questions (or pursue/court the Mystery). But if that must be held here too, then how do we simultaneously all agree on some "true north"? As I ask that question, it occurs to me that in these conversations between John, Jordan, and others, this never seems to be a problem. They've intuitively solved it, somehow. They never end with a declarative, final truth, and yet remain centered around some sort of common pursuit.
@@loganbrutsche8126 sorry for the long delay but I've been engaged in my own wisdom tradition. Yes, they don't seem to see the need for the transcendent. Everything that has been proposed so far seems to be egoic and centered within the individual. Which would make sense if you don't believe there's anything beyond the individual. I would argue that all of the great monotheistic Traditions place the center far above the individual so distant in fact that one must surrender the ego. And all of these traditions understand and articulate the mystery of the transcendent. Unfortunately Modern Man has anthropomorphised God to the extent that the concept of God has turned into a caricature of an old man with gray hair. Like most metaphysics of the modern world this is silly and ridiculous.
Yes, beginning with agricultural systems. They must be decentralized, broken up and made smaller and more local. If you get a chance, I think you might enjoy looking up retrofitting the suburbs, permaculture lectures by David Holmgren. They are on TH-cam
I have listened to this podcast twice now..great conversation and thank you! I have an expansive formulated opinion of it,which I can add later. However Is it possible for John to put his mic a little further away.. it seems like I have to switch volume states to stay relevant and among the conversation.. just a preamble
What of course is the problem of the propositional trap...I can only communicate non propositional knowing through art, and shared practices and performance....
Yes I agree on the reciprocal narrowing of material capitalism...you will often hear gdp growth framed as an addiction, this is more apt than is probably generally appreciated.
@@marykochan8962 Our economy only depends on constant growth because of the Left's need to fund their idiotic welfare state and pay the huge debts and unfunded liabilities already accumulated. Capitalism has zero to do with it. Socialism, everything. There is NOTHING in capitalism that requires the economy to grow.
@@marykochan8962 LOL! "Usury." Boy, hadn't heard that one in quite a while. I guess you are right, you are not an expert. But hey, if you think a system where transactions are free of coercion and only occur based on willingness of the participants is bad, while one where people are forced at gunpoint (i.e. the government) to transact according to others' preferred outcomes (be they bureaucrats, politicians, or the democratic mob) is good, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that.
Great conversation. I think that beyond the thought "there is no God" we are actually faced with the reality of "there is no blueprint" as science has adapted the God-as-design principle with nature-as-design principle, as if nature holds some kind of blueprint, that evolution is going some where, etc. What is the notion of meaning in a universe without a blueprint? That I think is the central question. It requires a new architecture of mind (opt out of the Judeo-Christian Platonism of the notion of "upward path" and directional design which emerges only in the axial age). What's next?
I would question how you justify the assertion that "there is no blueprint"? As is often the case when discussing such fundamental questions, there's multiple possible levels of abstraction & analysis. If you're saying that evolution doesn't take a predefined/predetermined path, then perhaps you're right. But if you're saying there's no underlying structure/framework/design principles to the universe itself (which I'm inferring from your use of this as continuation of the question of God) then I think you're making a much more tenuous and unsupportable claim. I don't consider myself religious, but I think there's much more to the nature of reality than most people think, and the notion birthed by scientific materialism that we have any inkling of the nature of reality is such unimaginable hubris as to almost defy description.
Now if we recognize that people are operating under a plurality of for want of a better word...cosmological codes such that within their framework their thinking is fully rational and their truths are partial and valid...do you think that a what I have been calling for a few years a religion without a god that is well fitted with our best scientific understanding which seems pretty similiar to what you guys are talking about can exist as a single cohesive set of stories, narratives, symbols and psychotechnologies? I did at one time, before reading Hanzi, but now I’m not so sure ....
At 22:00 you seem to be talking about the transition ( hierarchal) from complex system to organism through which properties such as anti fragility and adaptiviity emerge. From a theoretical POV what is required is synergistic coupling of constraints from which a higher order constraint emerges. Now, here is a logical parallel that may or may not be helpful....in level one complex systems ( Deacon would call these morphodynamic or structure forming) the maximum entropy principle is the rule of the day...the system exhibits structure precisely because it is the most efficient way of ( as rapidly as possible) removing the external asymmetry that rivers the system...where as in a teleodynamic system the asymmetry that drives each component process is perpetuated as a byproduct of the another component process. This is the type of spontaneous process you are endeavoring to engineer..one that is inherently self sustaining and because such a system as a whole has immanent purpose ( at the simplest level sustaining the asymetryies that drive its own internal dynamics ) , the capacity to develop and change over time, and the ( cultural in this case) capacity to learn and remember you get the capacity for evolution.
@@waynelewis425 wayne lewis I'm not versed in complexity theory/science so I might be missing something fairly basic, but I'm intrigued by the concept of transition from complex system to organism. Could you possibly explain what you mean by this? It seems concordant with a few other ideas I've absorbed over the years, but I don't want to make any hasty assumptions that I know what meaning/context you said it in.
Lachlan Bell there are two frameworks that I believe may be complimentary...the anticipatory systems of Rosen and the teleodynamics framework of Deacon. Rosen’s work was done some time ago, but he died very young. What I’m referring to there comes from the work of Deacon and is supplemented by some work from Spyradon Koutrufinis ( a biophilosipher). For simple complex systems in which order arises spontaneously, this process is always driven by some external asymmetry ( energy source) and in such systems the higher order constraints ( structure) arises according to the maximum entropy principle ( think whirlpools, hurricanes, or Bernard convection cells). In such systems, the higher order constraints serve to destroy as rapidly as possible the substrate which drives the structure..I.e they are inherently self destructive ( although there is no self to destruct) . The prototypical first living system, and the origin of immanent purpose in living systems ( Deacon proposes the autogen model) arose through the synergistic linking of 2 such processes in such a way that the dissipative output of one system provides the needed boundary condition ( asymmetry ) for the other and vice versa. For the origins of prelife...this is likely a collectively autocatalytic set of molecules and a self assembling monomer like microtubule or virus coats where the monomers are part of the closure of the set. The autocatalytic set requires proximity and will tend to diffuse if isolated, the self assembly process requires high concentration and will quickly exhaust a fixed supply of monomer, but together they are self propagating rather than self destructive. Obviously, in modern living systems there are billions of years of complexification. The boom Incomplete Nature from 2014 goes into much more detail but is for most a difficult read, there is another aside book that covers most important details in simpler setting entitled neither ghost nor machine by Jeremy Sherman that might be a good place to start. I’ll post also a video lecture from Deacon entitled hierarchal emergence in evolution in the next comment. The work of Stu Kaufman is also relevant here with respect to the fact that only living systems ( and it turns out teleodynamic structure is needed) do work on their own behalf...that is they expend energy to cause non spontaneous change in ways that allow them to persist against the second law of thermodynamics.
I really enjoyed this, thank you for making public - you are both great role models for a younger generation (or anyone for that matter). I didn't quite follow the proposition at around @49:25. My interpretation was basically, "The religion that is not a religion will make the unspeakable (truth) speakable." Is my interpretation totally off here? If not, can anyone elaborate on this? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here. :)
My take... There is no one method for sharing the gospel message... It is because it is good news that people want to sharing (each in their own way). Model #1 push yourself to share the gospel...keep your commitment, duty, obligation, guilt trips etc. Model #2 where you TRY NOT to share your "faith" but find in impossible to withhold the good news from others. It just over flows in an auto poetic fashion out of deep greatfulness.
@@marekmathews Thank you. I'm interested to see what continues to unfold here. I'm grateful to be alive at such a fertile, unpredictable time in history. I come from a non-religious background so I'm still wrapping my head around terms like "the gospel" and "the good news", but I have a firm personal grasp on "faith". For me faith is as simple as: I have faith that there is a purpose/reason that I exist in this world AND that there is a good reason for me not being able to know what my reason for existing is. That seems to be the minimal amount of faith required to defeat nihilism and generate the positive emotion to drive me forward in life. And what God means to me is something like, "the Great Mystery," which is something we can all, in theory, agree on (as long as you have the humility to admit that you don't know how or why we all got here). And contemplation of the Great Mystery creates a positive emotion in me that pulls me forward as I imagine what the answers might be. You could say I *worship* the Great Mystery. I suppose this is my "good news" to share! Right here in the most divine of places too - the TH-cam comments section, lol. :)
Can someone help me out. At the end when Jordan is connecting UBI back to faith what is he saying “the transition between work and ...” I cant make out that last word because John shouts over Jordan and the camera switches to John. Starts at 54:50
I gave some effort to figure it out for you :) first I heard rotation, but that didn't make any sense. But I figured it out by figuring why he associated this to what John was saying... he said vocation, a strong feeling of suitability for a particular career or occupation. if you have a strong feeling for an occupation you don't need money to do it, it just make sense to do it, it is meaningful.
This part was really hard to hear, I'd like to know if I've got the words right: 54:47 Jordan: "Right. And this is just to loop back, um. In terms of that, that thing, that construct of Universal Basic Income, this is the transition between those two. Right, it's that there's a difference between *work* and *vocation* ."
The way I see it, if the problem is well defined and can be modeled mathematically, one has a choice to escape the trap of hyper-modularity, of optimizing a finite and specific set of modules that are set to fail in the long run. How about if the problem is not well formulated - such as life or the importance of religion - how can one escape the modular trap and the addiction spiraling down? How does one maintain oneself generative in the midst of an ill-defined problem?
Names please of the others you are having conversations with, you mention in the end? Any Wikis beginning? websites? I have a meeting mid-February with several thought leaders who are evolutionary creators and will be discussing the religion that's not a religion (RNR).
@@mattspintosmith5285 thank you so much for your proactive and caring heart. You may email me at FusionVanguard@gmail.com. The meeting is the 13th. One participant is Dr Janet Smith Warfield who can help craft the new language for our movement. I co-produced the movie "American Visionary: the Story of Barbara Marx Hubbard." Evolution, ascension, connection with the ineffable. You might join the Facebook group CCC: CoCreators Convergence. 4 talk show hosts are among our numbers.
I would say they're identifying and defining the grandest social problem there is. I think resolving is a bit of a stretch though. Maybe the very rudimentary preliminary steps at best, although really, that's what identifying and defining is.
@@lachlanbell8390 There's a cacophony of individuals out there with their own approach vectors wrestling the issues. They're as differentiated as Joe Rogan is to Jordan Peterson is to Eric Weinstein is to Sam Harris is to Tim Pool is to Camille Paglia is to Tulsi Gabbard. And the list goes on...
I think what you guys are trying to do is certainly in good faith and a welcome contribution to public discourse given the dire condition of our culture (in The West). I am also not convinced that what you are trying to arrive at is not simply Christianity at its best; alleviated from all the baggage of having to actually exist in the real world. These ideas and theories are awesome. But I think as soon as you actually try to enact any sort of system with all your great ideas in the real world, it gets tainted with all the messiness and corruption associated with social structures and human beings. The fraction of people that can arrive at this sense of awe and meaning that you do through your ideas is incredibly tiny. Not everyone is like John or Jordan. Almost nobody is. Also, Jordan was awesome, pleasure to listen to.
The shift from Work to UBI is akin to Vervaeke's model of duty / responsibility / choosing the good versus the superior way of being tempted by the good / doing otherwise being unthinkable. This loops back to Jordan's point on how the religion of no religion is an essential design corollary to UBI, so that people will naturally *want* to contribute to the world and enact their vocation.
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 it has far more explanatory depth than what is available with "network effects " which is not explanatory, particularly when the nodes of the network are living systems or human beings. It's mostly I guess that with Deacon's framework less is discarded in the abstraction and more nuance in distinction is possible.
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 see also my earlier comment where I make distinctions between self-organizing (morphodynamic) dynamics and teleodynamics which is hierarchically emergent from and qualitatively distinct from "self organization ".
You could call these evolving sharable memes 'thought germs' -> from this video th-cam.com/video/rE3j_RHkqJc/w-d-xo.html So something along the lines of contagion, without the negative connotations. The paper referenced in the video calls it 'diffusion': papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1528077
Brilliant conversation! ( ....and this comes from a Christian!) A few thoughts on the content: 1/ being and having mode is conflated not only by capitalism but its complete opposite: socialism, social justice activism- they together complete the circle ( downward spiral)(having mode paradigm) 2/AA using transcendence and the importance of realising that this is the way to break out of the locked-in position. > In the "secular" religion the necessary "faith" for the possibility of turning around comes from the individual self??? That sounds very dubious to me! Cognitively understanding something does not guarantee the required metanoia - and who will induce "the faith"? 3/ideas evolving from self-perpetuating to self-promoting> yes, but is this so new? Christianity has not just popped out from nowhere either. It is the culmination of the Jewish faith that has gone through its own evolution. 4/ the oil dependency analogy regarding Christianity's embededness in the "infrastructure" grates in my mind. Oil is a material necessity ( but we lived without it before and we could live without it in the future) - Christianity - or religion if you like- is a spiritual necessity. Can we live for long without fulfilling this necessity? The Church (an organised, dogmatised etc... structure) does not necessarily equate with Christianity. (See Jesus' condemnation of the official Synagogue of his age. And of course vica versa!) I liked listening to you because of the beautiful process of thinking together, resonating personally with each other and it does help me clarify a few things about religion.Thank you!!
I hope this doesn't come off as too much of an attack, but when you say that Christianity is a spiritual necessity which we might not live long without, I would point out that one wouldn't be surprised to hear an extremely similar defense of oil: it is a material necessity that we "need". Anyway, I understand why you might bristle at this comparison. Oil is quite a dirty concept, especially in the way it's framed in this conversation, compared to addiction. And Christianity is something arguably much more pure. As you say, it *is* spiritual rather than material, which seems to give it more importance (although now I wonder if that elevation of spiritual over physical is really so dependable/wise?). But I think the main point they want to make, which I find very compelling, is that both oil and christianity (and any technology) can become addictive, *especially* if it's useful (or good). Oil is extremely useful. Christianity is extremely good. Thus, we may be susceptible to fitting each of these into our lifestyles and cultures in ways that we may only realize is dependent when the returns start diminishing. Oil is being shown to not grant us infinite material wealth. What if, one day, Christianity fails to multiply the loaves and fishes to the extent that we've come to expect? I would guess that such a situation is not at all "near" (as opposed to the situation with oil), but I can't really rule it out as impossible either. In that eventuality, if we are too unthinkingly dependent on it, we may find ourselves in quite a lot of hurt and panic. It's interesting you mention that the Church does not equate with Christianity, and for me it very much maps onto the distinction between the types of scaling. (I grew up an atheist and am inching closer to Christianity, and this is something I always ask Christians about when I can) Christianity "scaling" into the churches we have today strikes me as what Jordan was calling the "middle" version of scaling, where the propositions are copied outward incredibly effectively, which themselves are generally a force for good, but nevertheless lack some kind of spirit for spontaneous growth or evolution. I think that this "mass produced" version is what these two worry about becoming an addictive mode of thinking. On the other hand, the more alive version of Christianity, embodied deeply in individuals as John talks about later in the video... I suspect that we don't need to have the same kind of suspicion or caution about. Maybe we have to put the churches at a distance for fear of dependence, but maybe we can hold this more alive, "felt" version quite a bit closer, and with a much more total faith.
Logan Brutsche - hi, thanks for your thoughts on a few points in my comment! :o) Suddenly I started to wonder about the difference between being "addicted to" or "committed to" ( dare I use the phrase "faithful to"!) My hunch is that being committed to something is getting downgraded even discouraged in out society - looking at families, relationships, workplace, country. A lot of people fear commitment. And yet, this is the most addicted society! So the two, seemingly close, could be opposites. When I examine the kind of attitude I personally have towards Christianity, there is pretty solid commitment there but no addiction.....(I am sure Timothy Keller explores addiction in one of his "sermons" - they appear to me to be talks of psycho-spiritual wisdom inspired by the Psalms.) The oil-religion comparison has interesting connotations. You might be right about dirt-pure / material-spiritual - I am hearing now resonation with allegories in the Bible like: water, bread. The necessity for water ( which takes away our thirst but after a while the thirst returns. Jesus promises the Samaritan woman at the well "living water" that fulfils one for ever, meaning the message he brings about God's promise of a new testament.) I find "thirst" a very applicable and appropriate word to express both of these needs.... And, of course, we are neither addicted nor committed to water - we simply need it fir our survival. As Tim Keller keeps saying, God is a relational God and requires a personal relationship with each one of us, and created us as relational beings. The idea of a Church where religiosity ( =reconnecting needs ?) can be practised and shared is a natural consequence of this. However, with its structures, rituals and power it would fall into the traps Jordan describes of institutions. And with clergy that is dedicated to this structure and power and not without its fair share of "sins" ( egoism, desires, wickedness or naivety etc..)- the Church is often found too light! This is a big dilemma for me, too - I am longing to belong to a Church but it disappoints me again and again.....Maybe I am deluded if I am looking for the perfect in something run by imperfect humans - and at the same time forgive myself, too my own imperfections!..... For a new colour on your palette I can warmly and sincerely recommend Tim Keller ( a presbyterian pastor in NYC. He is a bit like Jordan Peterson- says it how it is. No compromise in the message to accommodate our narcissism and always thoroughly explored/thought through....) All the best on your journey!
So.... Christianity (bound by precepts etc.) and prosperity (oil or high standard of Living etc.) are addictions? That in turn lead to repetitive and unproductive behavior that has locked us into a static existential dilemma that is beyond the scope of Christianity to address. Am I the only person who listened to this video that thinks that maybe John and Jordan have a framing problem here? Or, maybe I have an understanding problem, I don’t know? I don’t question their sincerity. But the only solution I can arrive at here involves a kind of Orwellian like future.
A Key point made in this discussion: "The culture in general loses its capacity to make space for innovation". A big part of America's problem today. That's why China will rule the world in 20 years. Our elites love their "Eliteness" and desire more of it. They've closed themselves off to most channels of possible influence and waves of probable innovation from the base by sequestering financial infusions from them via "Risk Aversion". For the most part, China doesn't have this problem. So, my guess isn't that we don't have the financial resources to innovate on massive scales, my guess is that we have cowards controlling the money.
@@elizabethdesousa8290 That's funny you direct me to that particular video. I just watched it about a week ago and was expecting Anand to make some type of apologetic disclaimer about being at Google and talking about how Google is the problem. Somewhat surprised that Google even let his talk air on TH-cam.
@@merlepatterson Actually, I agree with that statement regarding google airing it on their own youtube channel, as for a disclaimer from Anand; he is a self professed provocateur, pointing at the emperors new clothes.
@@elizabethdesousa8290 True, but it's hard to see the Emperors new clothes while he's standing behind one-way glass overseeing his kingdom and all the minions. As is the case with Google's business model and public transparency.
@@merlepatterson The current ghosts of our day, but when in history has the top tier ever shown their true selves, even to themselves. Blindness can be a conditioning, other words known as denial. The question I find myself often wondering on is, what are people for to each other? I ask it to myself on all possible facets I can conjure up. When I begin to find myself judging the world I take myself back to that question. 0
18 mins in, with the autopoetic scalability concept. I could feel you explaining how consciousness spontaneously arises and decays as a fundamental constituent OF the system you're framing right now (a religion that's not a religion). I can see it happening in real time between you. Reciprocal narrowing (optimization of agency) IS as much a process of relevance realization as anagogic expansion (innovation of agency) in the opposite direction of the opponent processing virtual engine (arena) they are. It feels like you are creating a religion of consciousness that uses general AI to do mega relevance realization that will, itself, necessarily undergo a reverse in direction like all opponent processing does. It feels like this is close to realizing the realest reality at its most fundamental nature. This engine is in effect now holographically, and expands and contracts fractally (scaled) as nature's most basic pattern. Please think the think through. What will any innovative process look like after the S curve turns it back in on itself? Especially if AI is the core of its virtual engine of mega relevance realization? But perhaps this "other side of the coin" is already reality and we are just approaching it from the back side (reverse engineering it), which is your intention. Is it awe or horror? Of course, they are the same. It all feels like a Kline bottle. I'm only 20 mins into this. Had to wait for awe to overcome the horror. Looking forward to watching the rest of your conversation. Not sure if I can make sense like you two. I don't have my own elegant propositions to contain concepts so I'm trying to borrow yours. Listening to you is much like taking physchelics without any aftercare. I've taught myself to integrate by reexposing my machinery to yours. It just knows how to organize it behind my awareness and proof! I wake up with a new concept born while I slept.
@@mattspintosmith5285 Thank you. Bare with me on this one as I am more of a kitchen sink philosopher, I will attempt to articulate an idea still in the throes of forming based on J.V's meaning crisis presentations. Self learning algorithms, expansive feedback loops based on actual developmental stages of human development from prebirth to postpassing for optimal operation process, i.e google game theory search parameters. Micro to macro, individual to global, personal to general. Also check out the term Surveillance Capitalism.
@@elizabethdesousa8290 I think I'm following the train of thought you've outlined, although I have my own reservations about some of the ideas John & Jordan have hashed out in these discussions - I'm concerned about their blind spots, although it's possible they're not actually blind spots and just haven't been addressed yet. Anyway, my reason for commenting was to ask what connection you perceive between the design process you outline and surveillance Capitalism? I assume you're referencing Shoshana Zuboff's book, which I haven't yet read but is on my list.
@@lachlanbell8390 Thank you for commenting. For a quick response in reference to Shoshana Zuboff's book, to clarify, my perceived connection is more about how we have the means of technology to study people. Currently, most of it is being used for Attention Capital instead of individual well being. The religion of well being
Zen Buddhism is already the Religion of no Religion, it done already. Everything these guys talk about is already, it's not that I'm trying tk shoot them down and put my preferred paradyme in place, it's just the testable fact of the matter. The trouble is there are probably less than half a dozen people throughout the West who are truly qualified to lead Zen Buddhist Temples/centres. Everyone else is sadly trying to operate at a level they don't have.
You're so close. You're efforts are truly worthy, necessary, and good, but the further you go with your analysis regarding the meaning crisis, its relationship with relevance realization, and how to craft this into global social praxis, in the end, you keep dancing around the fire, almost seemingly fearful, understandably so, of the necessary commitment to jump in to the fire. Religio is the key, but y'all aren't truly willing to commit to your wisdom crafting belief - this is the historical difference between what allowed for all past sacred/divine beliefs to take root and flourish, which is where committence to It becomes both necessary and unquestioning. Until we give in to the essence of 'thy will be done,' you're just talking about It instead of communing (flowing) with It. Crafting religion isn't a bad thing, but keeping the Truth that manifests from religion(s) is the most difficult act. By the way, added necessary critique, your work overly emphasizes - understandably so - Western philosophy and Christianity with a tiny hint of Buddhism. PS Don't stop! This is thee work humanity is needing.
I can’t believe two people so intelligent, can be so naive as to utter and believe in “a religion that isn’t a religion”, it’s completely reduced their project to something just above a naive cliche.
Methinks you don't understand the subject matter enough to recognise why you're wrong. I leave room for the possibility that I'm wrong on this, but your phrasing seems to indicate you're coming from the new-atheist/scientific materialism-fundamentalist perspective, championed by Harris & Dawkins et al. If so, your mindset is designed to preclude you being receptive to ideas you don't already agree with - hence your blithe ridicule of the concept being discussed, which barely warrants acknowledgement, let alone a serious response.
To me, this is the best thing on TH-cam. The fact that a conversation At this level is not only happening- but that you are generous enough to post it online, is incredible.
John and Jordan, thank you for making this conversation public; thus offering ways to open our worldview to the shift happening in the zeitgeist. It inspires me to make my own contribution in the same direction.
Please keep at it, recommend us to the right places so we can uncover the path forward, together.
This is a great conversation, so I can't imagine anyone being offended or angry about it. I'm very glad that you put it up.
My thoughts exactly. I wish I could sit down with John Vervaeke and visit for half a day.
Great conversation I love the meaning of Metanoia we use this in our classical homeschooling circles towards education it means "a change of mind" some people look at it as repentance. But it is NOT meant as we moderns think of same, guilt or regret. It refers to making a decision to turn around and face a new direction. I used to think the world was flat then I encounter Metanoia and I realize the world is round.
Like the best of the classics, this dialogue rewards repeat listening. Ten months since I first listen to this, and after hearing many of you gentlemen’s subsequent dialogues, I am listening to this in a new height. Thanks for laying down this stairway of anagoge!
Thank you both for a very interesting discussion that had me both nodding in agreement in places and digging deeper within my own areas of greatest expertise to extrapolate, elaborate, riff and question. Keep doin what you’re doing
Thank you for sharing with the world gentlemen. This dialogos is personally and communally worth wrestling with.
Thanks Jordan and John.
Appreciate you posting this. Got a lot out of it. Many thanks to you both.
I love that you two connected
Fantastic topic. Keep going deeper. I ´ll hope we can find a way to put this into practice.
Thank you both for your faithfulness to this critical Shift to rediscover our inner relationship with the Divine, and a true universal brotherhood of joy based on falling in love with life again. We open to the consciousness of all the ascended and corporal Masters, and feel the livingness of this thought form of the RNR (religion that's not a religion) now radiating and evoking all visionary hearts to come co-create!
18:00 "I really like it when you do that!"
Awwww, #Friendship
Yeah I like how Jordan seems to discover insights at will hahaha
Real time translation and articulation of the participatory (or felt realm). John's presence and dialogue, triggers something deep within Jordan (or the space between John and Jordan), which he takes a moment to ask "what is that thing?"..ah, yes...that's it!" And then speaks the proposition, as it has just expressed from participatory, into the perspectival, into the procedural, and finally at the propositional!
There is a joy I get in watching them hash this out even as I think there are parts that a bit tortured. It is as if I’m watching two musicians work out the grammar of a new jazz and they are inviting us into the basement to watch the unfinished messy process and the vulnerability of the places where the (very few) clashing chords remain to be worked out, like being on the creative set of a Pixar movie honing the rough work into true art.
And in part it is because of this traversing the whole stack from participatory thru propositional and back again.
And I also just watched the talk with John, Mary Kochan and JP Marceau, and the feeling is so different. It is as if Mary can’t or won’t proceed past the propositional. I do not fault her her that, I want to be clear, and even so it pains me.
I suddenly just now recall the scene in What Dreams May Come where Robin William’s character is in hell with his wife and she can’t see him, and he finally realizes that she can’t, and so he declares that he will forsake heaven then in order to stay with her and that wakes her from her isolation. It is a beautiful scene.
I feel like John and Mary got to that scene and Mary thought she was trying to save John, but John can see Mary and is not asking for her to remain with him, but he wants to remain and being light to all those in this place who has forgotten their forgetting.
It felt so utterly anti-climatic for me, and again not to claim that anyone should have done anything different.
And after I posted this, the notion of the television series The Good Place comes to mind, and the idea that good can be done even in the afterlife is something that feels to some like a saving grace, and to those who respect tradition as a travesty. Will that the depth of this unresolvable koan break our minds wide open so that we are not entrapped by our devotion to understanding.
Thank you both. Miss my JV dose on a Saturday morn.
Great conversation, though I would like you to dive deeper. For example, the "evolving spiraling upward way" is part of the Christian metaphysics.Consider ejecting that frame (its not a frame that Daoism has, where more emphasis is on enduring coherence through directionless change). Also the notion of "there is no god" has subtly been replaced with the sense that "there is a blueprint" by science and secular humanism, akin to Kant's introjection of Hegel's Spirit into the rational mind. What is meaning without a blueprint, and change without progression? Also there is a sense in this conversation of the "goal" being somewhere else -- up there, or in the future state, versus perceiving what is always already here, and asking what is possible from here? There is a sense with the way John gets excited, of a child like energy before Christmas -- that something is just around the corner. These are all axial age dynamics, that I believe are defining characteristics of "religion" as we know it. What is a post- axial religio? That's what I would like to see emerging.
Regarding the collapse of innovation and general systems collapse, this is why I have been saying to my husband for quite a while that the reigning Fable of our time is the one about the killing of the goose that laid the golden egg. I see it happening all around me.
PVK's (inevitable) commentary on this is also going to be gold. :)
who/what is PVK?
@@philosophy_by_psyche Paul VanDerklay:- a christian podcaster (v. broadly speaking)
@@philosophy_by_psychePaul VanderKlay … check out his YT channel and prepare to dedicate lots of time to catch up if you get hooked. :)
Is Jordan gradually subtracting letters from his last name?
Oh nevermind, I just figured out that was a Roman numeral 2.😅
Mary Kochan 😂😂😂
@@marykochan8962 Firing on all cylinders! So funny.
Jordan Greenhall -> Jordan Hall -> Jordan ll
So interesting to watch! Thank you alot
Thanks, and keep it up, please!
Regarding the Christianity part… to me, it seems like what they wanted to say to Christians could be imparted to them in their language more strongly like this: "Do not worry Christian Men, in this religion we are talking about ("Religion that is Not a religion")… in its scriptures the first thing it is going to say is that you Christian people (among few others) are the first ones that are absolved. You are the ones that brought us all here to this salvation point. You did the best WE could. You (and a couple of others) are not only our saviors - but you are also our the first ones that are saved. We (and all the generations that come after) we'll remember you always like the ones that enabled us, created us. And while we had to make this paradigm shift, this Religion that is Not a Religion, that surpasses and encompasses you, we remember you as true enough, yours was efficient enough, adaptive enough - YOU got us here... you are one of US."
The moment truth becomes organized, it becomes untrue.
At one point in this talk, Johnny Vee corrected himself and changed his use of the word "faith" to "faithfulness" and I thought: "oh, I like that. That us really important."
I learned so much from watching these two...utterly amazing! Please keep sharing... It feels like its a road trip and I'm in the back seat listening to the adults talk.
Yes, ubi must be combined with a deep safety net that addresses all material , health and psychological needs. This is where the two Hanzi Freinacht books really shine in my view.
I wish I could be part of this conversation. I got a burst of technological analogies that could've made it even better :)
U could always share them here
Was missing you guys
A very interesting discussion so I thank you two for sharing it. Although there are many aspects of the conversation that I could comment on the one that struck me the most as you were speaking towards the end was the idea that your comments did not seem to take into account individual agency and intentionality. In the end your religion that's not a religion is going to have to have a center. Without it you will end up with a hodgepodge of psycho Technologies that people will pick and choose from like a buffet and ultimately never fully endorse the metaphysics of the Enterprise.
@Forever Jung humans need an ultimate point of relevance that transcends their own story. That is what I would call the center. Something Universal that everyone can circumambulate around. Without it you will have no cohesion no communitas.
@@daneracamosa This seems like quite an interesting conundrum, because a lot of these conversations focus on not ending at some ultimate (declarative) truth, and rather continuing to ask questions (or pursue/court the Mystery). But if that must be held here too, then how do we simultaneously all agree on some "true north"? As I ask that question, it occurs to me that in these conversations between John, Jordan, and others, this never seems to be a problem. They've intuitively solved it, somehow. They never end with a declarative, final truth, and yet remain centered around some sort of common pursuit.
@@loganbrutsche8126 sorry for the long delay but I've been engaged in my own wisdom tradition. Yes, they don't seem to see the need for the transcendent. Everything that has been proposed so far seems to be egoic and centered within the individual. Which would make sense if you don't believe there's anything beyond the individual.
I would argue that all of the great monotheistic Traditions place the center far above the individual so distant in fact that one must surrender the ego. And all of these traditions understand and articulate the mystery of the transcendent. Unfortunately Modern Man has anthropomorphised God to the extent that the concept of God has turned into a caricature of an old man with gray hair. Like most metaphysics of the modern world this is silly and ridiculous.
Wonderful, this sounds like good news to me.
This is an excellent argument as well for modular locally well fitted infrastructure over monolith is systems.
Yes, beginning with agricultural systems. They must be decentralized, broken up and made smaller and more local. If you get a chance, I think you might enjoy looking up retrofitting the suburbs, permaculture lectures by David Holmgren. They are on TH-cam
@@marykochan8962 thx, I'm pretty op on the topic of regenerative practices in general and have some familiarity with agro ecology and permaculture.
@@waynelewis425 that is great. Are you practicing permaculture, yourself?
@@marykochan8962 only in my small garden at home...
22:44 Perhaps the "viral" metaphor is applicable here? I often hear the phrase "going viral" used to describe the network-effect phenomenon.
Amen to the selling out. Lots of frustration among ordinary Christians about this. Hence things like the Benedict option.
Jordan you snuck in a gem at the close (55:24) Thankyou
I have listened to this podcast twice now..great conversation and thank you!
I have an expansive formulated opinion of it,which I can add later. However Is it possible for John to put his mic a little further away.. it seems like I have to switch volume states to stay relevant and among the conversation.. just a preamble
What of course is the problem of the propositional trap...I can only communicate non propositional knowing through art, and shared practices and performance....
Mind. Blown.
Yes I agree on the reciprocal narrowing of material capitalism...you will often hear gdp growth framed as an addiction, this is more apt than is probably generally appreciated.
Yes, nothing grows in this way in nature except for cancers. It is very destructive for us to have an economy that depends on constant growth.
@@marykochan8962 Our economy only depends on constant growth because of the Left's need to fund their idiotic welfare state and pay the huge debts and unfunded liabilities already accumulated. Capitalism has zero to do with it. Socialism, everything. There is NOTHING in capitalism that requires the economy to grow.
@@KRGruner I'm not sure that's the full picture. I have a suspicion it has something to do with usury. But I'm not an expert.
@@marykochan8962 LOL! "Usury." Boy, hadn't heard that one in quite a while. I guess you are right, you are not an expert. But hey, if you think a system where transactions are free of coercion and only occur based on willingness of the participants is bad, while one where people are forced at gunpoint (i.e. the government) to transact according to others' preferred outcomes (be they bureaucrats, politicians, or the democratic mob) is good, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that.
@@KRGruner wow talk about putting words in my mouth
Great conversation. I think that beyond the thought "there is no God" we are actually faced with the reality of "there is no blueprint" as science has adapted the God-as-design principle with nature-as-design principle, as if nature holds some kind of blueprint, that evolution is going some where, etc. What is the notion of meaning in a universe without a blueprint? That I think is the central question. It requires a new architecture of mind (opt out of the Judeo-Christian Platonism of the notion of "upward path" and directional design which emerges only in the axial age). What's next?
I would question how you justify the assertion that "there is no blueprint"? As is often the case when discussing such fundamental questions, there's multiple possible levels of abstraction & analysis. If you're saying that evolution doesn't take a predefined/predetermined path, then perhaps you're right. But if you're saying there's no underlying structure/framework/design principles to the universe itself (which I'm inferring from your use of this as continuation of the question of God) then I think you're making a much more tenuous and unsupportable claim. I don't consider myself religious, but I think there's much more to the nature of reality than most people think, and the notion birthed by scientific materialism that we have any inkling of the nature of reality is such unimaginable hubris as to almost defy description.
18:50 exponential mutually beneficial anti-rivalrous scalability; this a Key concept
Now if we recognize that people are operating under a plurality of for want of a better word...cosmological codes such that within their framework their thinking is fully rational and their truths are partial and valid...do you think that a what I have been calling for a few years a religion without a god that is well fitted with our best scientific understanding which seems pretty similiar to what you guys are talking about can exist as a single cohesive set of stories, narratives, symbols and psychotechnologies? I did at one time, before reading Hanzi, but now I’m not so sure ....
At 22:00 you seem to be talking about the transition ( hierarchal) from complex system to organism through which properties such as anti fragility and adaptiviity emerge. From a theoretical POV what is required is synergistic coupling of constraints from which a higher order constraint emerges. Now, here is a logical parallel that may or may not be helpful....in level one complex systems ( Deacon would call these morphodynamic or structure forming) the maximum entropy principle is the rule of the day...the system exhibits structure precisely because it is the most efficient way of ( as rapidly as possible) removing the external asymmetry that rivers the system...where as in a teleodynamic system the asymmetry that drives each component process is perpetuated as a byproduct of the another component process. This is the type of spontaneous process you are endeavoring to engineer..one that is inherently self sustaining and because such a system as a whole has immanent purpose ( at the simplest level sustaining the asymetryies that drive its own internal dynamics ) , the capacity to develop and change over time, and the ( cultural in this case) capacity to learn and remember you get the capacity for evolution.
Finally someone mentioned Deacon! I'm surprised by lack of awareness of Deacon's ideas in these circles.
@@siarez me too
@@waynelewis425 wayne lewis I'm not versed in complexity theory/science so I might be missing something fairly basic, but I'm intrigued by the concept of transition from complex system to organism. Could you possibly explain what you mean by this? It seems concordant with a few other ideas I've absorbed over the years, but I don't want to make any hasty assumptions that I know what meaning/context you said it in.
Lachlan Bell there are two frameworks that I believe may be complimentary...the anticipatory systems of Rosen and the teleodynamics framework of Deacon. Rosen’s work was done some time ago, but he died very young. What I’m referring to there comes from the work of Deacon and is supplemented by some work from Spyradon Koutrufinis ( a biophilosipher). For simple complex systems in which order arises spontaneously, this process is always driven by some external asymmetry ( energy source) and in such systems the higher order constraints ( structure) arises according to the maximum entropy principle ( think whirlpools, hurricanes, or Bernard convection cells). In such systems, the higher order constraints serve to destroy as rapidly as possible the substrate which drives the structure..I.e they are inherently self destructive ( although there is no self to destruct) . The prototypical first living system, and the origin of immanent purpose in living systems ( Deacon proposes the autogen model) arose through the synergistic linking of 2 such processes in such a way that the dissipative output of one system provides the needed boundary condition ( asymmetry ) for the other and vice versa. For the origins of prelife...this is likely a collectively autocatalytic set of molecules and a self assembling monomer like microtubule or virus coats where the monomers are part of the closure of the set.
The autocatalytic set requires proximity and will tend to diffuse if isolated, the self assembly process requires high concentration and will quickly exhaust a fixed supply of monomer, but together they are self propagating rather than self destructive. Obviously, in modern living systems there are billions of years of complexification. The boom Incomplete Nature from 2014 goes into much more detail but is for most a difficult read, there is another aside book that covers most important details in simpler setting entitled neither ghost nor machine by Jeremy Sherman that might be a good place to start. I’ll post also a video lecture from Deacon entitled hierarchal emergence in evolution in the next comment.
The work of Stu Kaufman is also relevant here with respect to the fact that only living systems ( and it turns out teleodynamic structure is needed) do work on their own behalf...that is they expend energy to cause non spontaneous change in ways that allow them to persist against the second law of thermodynamics.
Lachlan th-cam.com/video/aWMEnIYEaQQ/w-d-xo.html
I really enjoyed this, thank you for making public - you are both great role models for a younger generation (or anyone for that matter). I didn't quite follow the proposition at around @49:25. My interpretation was basically, "The religion that is not a religion will make the unspeakable (truth) speakable." Is my interpretation totally off here? If not, can anyone elaborate on this? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here. :)
My take... There is no one method for sharing the gospel message... It is because it is good news that people want to sharing (each in their own way). Model #1 push yourself to share the gospel...keep your commitment, duty, obligation, guilt trips etc. Model #2 where you TRY NOT to share your "faith" but find in impossible to withhold the good news from others. It just over flows in an auto poetic fashion out of deep greatfulness.
@@marekmathews Thank you. I'm interested to see what continues to unfold here. I'm grateful to be alive at such a fertile, unpredictable time in history. I come from a non-religious background so I'm still wrapping my head around terms like "the gospel" and "the good news", but I have a firm personal grasp on "faith". For me faith is as simple as: I have faith that there is a purpose/reason that I exist in this world AND that there is a good reason for me not being able to know what my reason for existing is. That seems to be the minimal amount of faith required to defeat nihilism and generate the positive emotion to drive me forward in life. And what God means to me is something like, "the Great Mystery," which is something we can all, in theory, agree on (as long as you have the humility to admit that you don't know how or why we all got here). And contemplation of the Great Mystery creates a positive emotion in me that pulls me forward as I imagine what the answers might be. You could say I *worship* the Great Mystery. I suppose this is my "good news" to share! Right here in the most divine of places too - the TH-cam comments section, lol. :)
Can someone help me out. At the end when Jordan is connecting UBI back to faith what is he saying “the transition between work and ...” I cant make out that last word because John shouts over Jordan and the camera switches to John.
Starts at 54:50
I gave some effort to figure it out for you :)
first I heard rotation, but that didn't make any sense.
But I figured it out by figuring why he associated this to what John was saying...
he said vocation,
a strong feeling of suitability for a particular career or occupation.
if you have a strong feeling for an occupation you don't need money to do it, it just make sense to do it, it is meaningful.
If people inhabit different paradigms then any communication around a new psychotechnology has to be tailored to these different paradigms.
This part was really hard to hear, I'd like to know if I've got the words right:
54:47
Jordan: "Right. And this is just to loop back, um. In terms of that, that thing, that construct of Universal Basic Income, this is the transition between those two. Right, it's that there's a difference between *work* and *vocation* ."
I believe that is correct
The way I see it, if the problem is well defined and can be modeled mathematically, one has a choice to escape the trap of hyper-modularity, of optimizing a finite and specific set of modules that are set to fail in the long run. How about if the problem is not well formulated - such as life or the importance of religion - how can one escape the modular trap and the addiction spiraling down? How does one maintain oneself generative in the midst of an ill-defined problem?
Names please of the others you are having conversations with, you mention in the end? Any Wikis beginning? websites? I have a meeting mid-February with several thought leaders who are evolutionary creators and will be discussing the religion that's not a religion (RNR).
Karima, we had a brief chat in real time on John's Q and A. I'd be very interested to learn of outcomes from your February discussion. (Rev Matt)
@@mattspintosmith5285 thank you so much for your proactive and caring heart. You may email me at FusionVanguard@gmail.com. The meeting is the 13th. One participant is Dr Janet Smith Warfield who can help craft the new language for our movement. I co-produced the movie "American Visionary: the Story of Barbara Marx Hubbard." Evolution, ascension, connection with the ineffable. You might join the Facebook group CCC: CoCreators Convergence. 4 talk show hosts are among our numbers.
I sense these discussions are identifying, defining and then resolving grand social problems.
I would say they're identifying and defining the grandest social problem there is. I think resolving is a bit of a stretch though. Maybe the very rudimentary preliminary steps at best, although really, that's what identifying and defining is.
@@lachlanbell8390 There's a cacophony of individuals out there with their own approach vectors wrestling the issues. They're as differentiated as Joe Rogan is to Jordan Peterson is to Eric Weinstein is to Sam Harris is to Tim Pool is to Camille Paglia is to Tulsi Gabbard. And the list goes on...
@@merlepatterson I mean sure, you're not wrong, but I'm not sure how that relates to the point(s) above.
@@lachlanbell8390 You've probably hit on the main point. Everybody's "not wrong"
@@merlepatterson Ummm... that's not what I actually said, but OK? Seems like we're having two completely different discussions here.
Audio has some issues on Jordan's end, hopefully that can be address in future chats
I think what you guys are trying to do is certainly in good faith and a welcome contribution to public discourse given the dire condition of our culture (in The West). I am also not convinced that what you are trying to arrive at is not simply Christianity at its best; alleviated from all the baggage of having to actually exist in the real world. These ideas and theories are awesome. But I think as soon as you actually try to enact any sort of system with all your great ideas in the real world, it gets tainted with all the messiness and corruption associated with social structures and human beings. The fraction of people that can arrive at this sense of awe and meaning that you do through your ideas is incredibly tiny. Not everyone is like John or Jordan. Almost nobody is. Also, Jordan was awesome, pleasure to listen to.
That which I could follow I found interesting. But I could not understand the UBI connection.
The shift from Work to UBI is akin to Vervaeke's model of duty / responsibility / choosing the good versus the superior way of being tempted by the good / doing otherwise being unthinkable. This loops back to Jordan's point on how the religion of no religion is an essential design corollary to UBI, so that people will naturally *want* to contribute to the world and enact their vocation.
The teleodynamic framework of Deacon is much better than network effects in this setting as I see it
Why? Not agreeing or disagreeing btw but what benefit, utility, or comprehensiveness would you see when contrasted with Deacon?
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 it has far more explanatory depth than what is available with "network effects " which is not explanatory, particularly when the nodes of the network are living systems or human beings. It's mostly I guess that with Deacon's framework less is discarded in the abstraction and more nuance in distinction is possible.
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 see also my earlier comment where I make distinctions between self-organizing (morphodynamic) dynamics and teleodynamics which is hierarchically emergent from and qualitatively distinct from "self organization ".
Could someone link me part one in this series?
@jnxmaster - They refer to this "Part 2" dialog at the end of the following whose title implies "Part 1": th-cam.com/video/nl48eFZGRq8/w-d-xo.html
Pursue those locks which are really antennae leading to a higher consideration.
Is there a discord for this somewhere?
You could call these evolving sharable memes 'thought germs' -> from this video th-cam.com/video/rE3j_RHkqJc/w-d-xo.html
So something along the lines of contagion, without the negative connotations.
The paper referenced in the video calls it 'diffusion': papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1528077
Are tainters’ societies complex or complicated?
The entire societies are complex, because they exhibit emergent properties. The bureaucratic logic is merely complicated because it is rule based.
Brilliant conversation! ( ....and this comes from a Christian!) A few thoughts on the content:
1/ being and having mode is conflated not only by capitalism but its complete opposite: socialism, social justice activism- they together complete the circle ( downward spiral)(having mode paradigm)
2/AA using transcendence and the importance of realising that this is the way to break out of the locked-in position. > In the "secular" religion the necessary "faith" for the possibility of turning around comes from the individual self??? That sounds very dubious to me! Cognitively understanding something does not guarantee the required metanoia - and who will induce "the faith"?
3/ideas evolving from self-perpetuating to self-promoting> yes, but is this so new? Christianity has not just popped out from nowhere either. It is the culmination of the Jewish faith that has gone through its own evolution.
4/ the oil dependency analogy regarding Christianity's embededness in the "infrastructure" grates in my mind. Oil is a material necessity ( but we lived without it before and we could live without it in the future) - Christianity - or religion if you like- is a spiritual necessity. Can we live for long without fulfilling this necessity?
The Church (an organised, dogmatised etc... structure) does not necessarily equate with Christianity. (See Jesus' condemnation of the official Synagogue of his age. And of course vica versa!)
I liked listening to you because of the beautiful process of thinking together, resonating personally with each other and it does help me clarify a few things about religion.Thank you!!
I hope this doesn't come off as too much of an attack, but when you say that Christianity is a spiritual necessity which we might not live long without, I would point out that one wouldn't be surprised to hear an extremely similar defense of oil: it is a material necessity that we "need". Anyway, I understand why you might bristle at this comparison. Oil is quite a dirty concept, especially in the way it's framed in this conversation, compared to addiction. And Christianity is something arguably much more pure. As you say, it *is* spiritual rather than material, which seems to give it more importance (although now I wonder if that elevation of spiritual over physical is really so dependable/wise?).
But I think the main point they want to make, which I find very compelling, is that both oil and christianity (and any technology) can become addictive, *especially* if it's useful (or good). Oil is extremely useful. Christianity is extremely good. Thus, we may be susceptible to fitting each of these into our lifestyles and cultures in ways that we may only realize is dependent when the returns start diminishing. Oil is being shown to not grant us infinite material wealth. What if, one day, Christianity fails to multiply the loaves and fishes to the extent that we've come to expect? I would guess that such a situation is not at all "near" (as opposed to the situation with oil), but I can't really rule it out as impossible either. In that eventuality, if we are too unthinkingly dependent on it, we may find ourselves in quite a lot of hurt and panic.
It's interesting you mention that the Church does not equate with Christianity, and for me it very much maps onto the distinction between the types of scaling. (I grew up an atheist and am inching closer to Christianity, and this is something I always ask Christians about when I can)
Christianity "scaling" into the churches we have today strikes me as what Jordan was calling the "middle" version of scaling, where the propositions are copied outward incredibly effectively, which themselves are generally a force for good, but nevertheless lack some kind of spirit for spontaneous growth or evolution. I think that this "mass produced" version is what these two worry about becoming an addictive mode of thinking.
On the other hand, the more alive version of Christianity, embodied deeply in individuals as John talks about later in the video... I suspect that we don't need to have the same kind of suspicion or caution about. Maybe we have to put the churches at a distance for fear of dependence, but maybe we can hold this more alive, "felt" version quite a bit closer, and with a much more total faith.
Logan Brutsche - hi, thanks for your thoughts on a few points in my comment! :o)
Suddenly I started to wonder about the difference between being "addicted to" or "committed to" ( dare I use the phrase "faithful to"!) My hunch is that being committed to something is getting downgraded even discouraged in out society - looking at families, relationships, workplace, country. A lot of people fear commitment. And yet, this is the most addicted society!
So the two, seemingly close, could be opposites. When I examine the kind of attitude I personally have towards Christianity, there is pretty solid commitment there but no addiction.....(I am sure Timothy Keller explores addiction in one of his "sermons" - they appear to me to be talks of psycho-spiritual wisdom inspired by the Psalms.)
The oil-religion comparison has interesting connotations. You might be right about dirt-pure / material-spiritual - I am hearing now resonation with allegories in the Bible like: water, bread. The necessity for water ( which takes away our thirst but after a while the thirst returns. Jesus promises the Samaritan woman at the well "living water" that fulfils one for ever, meaning the message he brings about God's promise of a new testament.) I find "thirst" a very applicable and appropriate word to express both of these needs....
And, of course, we are neither addicted nor committed to water - we simply need it fir our survival.
As Tim Keller keeps saying, God is a relational God and requires a personal relationship with each one of us, and created us as relational beings. The idea of a Church where religiosity ( =reconnecting needs ?) can be practised and shared is a natural consequence of this. However, with its structures, rituals and power it would fall into the traps Jordan describes of institutions. And with clergy that is dedicated to this structure and power and not without its fair share of "sins" ( egoism, desires, wickedness or naivety etc..)- the Church is often found too light! This is a big dilemma for me, too - I am longing to belong to a Church but it disappoints me again and again.....Maybe I am deluded if I am looking for the perfect in something run by imperfect humans - and at the same time forgive myself, too my own imperfections!.....
For a new colour on your palette I can warmly and sincerely recommend Tim Keller ( a presbyterian pastor in NYC. He is a bit like Jordan Peterson- says it how it is. No compromise in the message to accommodate our narcissism and always thoroughly explored/thought through....) All the best on your journey!
When you have a child you become faced, acutely, with your engineer's responsibility/culpability.
...but of course in this, even more so than through oral language the message can easily be misconstrued
40:00 ish
There is an already-existing 'religion that is not a religion'. If you are interested, Google: "The Evolutionary Manifesto" and subsequent writings.
cool u2 we have to get lost to get found
So.... Christianity (bound by precepts etc.) and prosperity (oil or high standard of Living etc.) are addictions? That in turn lead to repetitive and unproductive behavior that has locked us into a static existential dilemma that is beyond the scope of Christianity to address. Am I the only person who listened to this video that thinks that maybe John and Jordan have a framing problem here? Or, maybe I have an understanding problem, I don’t know? I don’t question their sincerity. But the only solution I can arrive at here involves a kind of Orwellian like future.
Come on guys build something…🦋🕊
Game A is teleologically finite
Game B would be teleologically infinite (?)
this is hot shit
A Key point made in this discussion: "The culture in general loses its capacity to make space for innovation". A big part of America's problem today. That's why China will rule the world in 20 years. Our elites love their "Eliteness" and desire more of it. They've closed themselves off to most channels of possible influence and waves of probable innovation from the base by sequestering financial infusions from them via "Risk Aversion". For the most part, China doesn't have this problem. So, my guess isn't that we don't have the financial resources to innovate on massive scales, my guess is that we have cowards controlling the money.
th-cam.com/video/d_zt3kGW1NM/w-d-xo.html You will appreciate this vid in relation to false elite generosity and or societal contribution
@@elizabethdesousa8290 That's funny you direct me to that particular video. I just watched it about a week ago and was expecting Anand to make some type of apologetic disclaimer about being at Google and talking about how Google is the problem. Somewhat surprised that Google even let his talk air on TH-cam.
@@merlepatterson Actually, I agree with that statement regarding google airing it on their own youtube channel, as for a disclaimer from Anand; he is a self professed provocateur, pointing at the emperors new clothes.
@@elizabethdesousa8290 True, but it's hard to see the Emperors new clothes while he's standing behind one-way glass overseeing his kingdom and all the minions. As is the case with Google's business model and public transparency.
@@merlepatterson The current ghosts of our day, but when in history has the top tier ever shown their true selves, even to themselves. Blindness can be a conditioning, other words known as denial. The question I find myself often wondering on is, what are people for to each other? I ask it to myself on all possible facets I can conjure up. When I begin to find myself judging the world I take myself back to that question. 0
18 mins in, with the autopoetic scalability concept. I could feel you explaining how consciousness spontaneously arises and decays as a fundamental constituent OF the system you're framing right now (a religion that's not a religion). I can see it happening in real time between you. Reciprocal narrowing (optimization of agency) IS as much a process of relevance realization as anagogic expansion (innovation of agency) in the opposite direction of the opponent processing virtual engine (arena) they are. It feels like you are creating a religion of consciousness that uses general AI to do mega relevance realization that will, itself, necessarily undergo a reverse in direction like all opponent processing does. It feels like this is close to realizing the realest reality at its most fundamental nature. This engine is in effect now holographically, and expands and contracts fractally (scaled) as nature's most basic pattern. Please think the think through. What will any innovative process look like after the S curve turns it back in on itself? Especially if AI is the core of its virtual engine of mega relevance realization? But perhaps this "other side of the coin" is already reality and we are just approaching it from the back side (reverse engineering it), which is your intention. Is it awe or horror? Of course, they are the same. It all feels like a Kline bottle. I'm only 20 mins into this. Had to wait for awe to overcome the horror. Looking forward to watching the rest of your conversation. Not sure if I can make sense like you two. I don't have my own elegant propositions to contain concepts so I'm trying to borrow yours. Listening to you is much like taking physchelics without any aftercare. I've taught myself to integrate by reexposing my machinery to yours. It just knows how to organize it behind my awareness and proof! I wake up with a new concept born while I slept.
Jordan, get a wired internet connection and a better mic, for God's sake
Algorithm by design a religion that is not a religion. An evolutionary repeatable learning principle
Sounds interesting Elizabeth, I'd like to know more about your idea here.
@@mattspintosmith5285 Thank you. Bare with me on this one as I am more of a kitchen sink philosopher, I will attempt to articulate an idea still in the throes of forming based on J.V's meaning crisis presentations. Self learning algorithms, expansive feedback loops based on actual developmental stages of human development from prebirth to postpassing for optimal operation process, i.e google game theory search parameters. Micro to macro, individual to global, personal to general.
Also check out the term Surveillance Capitalism.
@@mattspintosmith5285 as a side note, my personal preference for optimal operation process being, inspired purpose for satisfaction and challenge
@@elizabethdesousa8290 I think I'm following the train of thought you've outlined, although I have my own reservations about some of the ideas John & Jordan have hashed out in these discussions - I'm concerned about their blind spots, although it's possible they're not actually blind spots and just haven't been addressed yet. Anyway, my reason for commenting was to ask what connection you perceive between the design process you outline and surveillance Capitalism? I assume you're referencing Shoshana Zuboff's book, which I haven't yet read but is on my list.
@@lachlanbell8390 Thank you for commenting. For a quick response in reference to Shoshana Zuboff's book, to clarify, my perceived connection is more about how we have the means of technology to study people. Currently, most of it is being used for Attention Capital instead of individual well being. The religion of well being
Zen Buddhism is already the Religion of no Religion, it done already. Everything these guys talk about is already, it's not that I'm trying tk shoot them down and put my preferred paradyme in place, it's just the testable fact of the matter. The trouble is there are probably less than half a dozen people throughout the West who are truly qualified to lead Zen Buddhist Temples/centres. Everyone else is sadly trying to operate at a level they don't have.
You're so close. You're efforts are truly worthy, necessary, and good, but the further you go with your analysis regarding the meaning crisis, its relationship with relevance realization, and how to craft this into global social praxis, in the end, you keep dancing around the fire, almost seemingly fearful, understandably so, of the necessary commitment to jump in to the fire. Religio is the key, but y'all aren't truly willing to commit to your wisdom crafting belief - this is the historical difference between what allowed for all past sacred/divine beliefs to take root and flourish, which is where committence to It becomes both necessary and unquestioning. Until we give in to the essence of 'thy will be done,' you're just talking about It instead of communing (flowing) with It. Crafting religion isn't a bad thing, but keeping the Truth that manifests from religion(s) is the most difficult act.
By the way, added necessary critique, your work overly emphasizes - understandably so - Western philosophy and Christianity with a tiny hint of Buddhism.
PS Don't stop! This is thee work humanity is needing.
I can’t believe two people so intelligent, can be so naive as to utter and believe in “a religion that isn’t a religion”, it’s completely reduced their project to something just above a naive cliche.
Methinks you don't understand the subject matter enough to recognise why you're wrong. I leave room for the possibility that I'm wrong on this, but your phrasing seems to indicate you're coming from the new-atheist/scientific materialism-fundamentalist perspective, championed by Harris & Dawkins et al. If so, your mindset is designed to preclude you being receptive to ideas you don't already agree with - hence your blithe ridicule of the concept being discussed, which barely warrants acknowledgement, let alone a serious response.
If people inhabit different paradigms then any communication around a new psychotechnology has to be tailored to these different paradigms.