I have watched it and just wanted to appreciate you for that openness and precision as you dialogue with a reformed protestant Christian. What a meaningful and stretching conversation you had. I deeply admire your character, Dr. Vervaeke!
Just wanted to say thank you. I deeply appreciate your work. I'm trying to spend as much time as I can listening and absorbing knowledge. I don't know how but I hope some day I can contribute to your work and help spread it in my part of the world. Merely sharing and talking about it has helped me participate in true dialogos and deepen my understanding and perspective on the world. Once again - sincere gratitude, John.
p.s. I am reading and listening to many different topics and if not clearly see, I can definitely feel the thread of conectedness and convergence to what you are trying to bring to the world.
Wonderful conversation! I too am reading (slowly) through David Bentley Hart’s translation of the NT, and I agree it’s much weirder than the more familiar translations. I find myself sketching diagrams in the margins “Pageau-style” because the language “lands” in me as images. Hart’s book on the Experience of God (being, consciousness, bliss) also helped me recognize my common theistic errors… that God is not just a “super thing.” So glad to hear you’re engaging with Hart!
Thank you so much, John and Paul, for the genuine dialogos! It fills me with hope seeing you two having come so far to meet each other in the center. It is true grace that you took us along on this journey.
ABSOLUTLY one of the most meaningful dia-logos I ever watched. Thanks both for showing how wisdom should be in thoughts and behavior. In Christianty I found a loving community that introduced me to the path of wisdom, yet with John V. teachings I realised the relevance of absolute truth for a meaningful life.
I am trying to find Tillich’s essay “the god beyond the god of theism” without success. John, would you be able to link a resource for this? Either here or on the discord server please? Beautiful conversation. Thank you 🙏🏽❤️
I used to wish there were conversations and others (like The Stoa) were on Spotify, then I bit the bullet and bought a TH-cam subscription so I could listen on the go and the TH-cam music app is way better than Spotify. I’d recommend making the change! If you use a VPN set to India (for example) you can get a cheap price I’ve been told.
John, I want to suggest that you get the New Testament translated by RICHMOND LATTIMORE. I can only expect that it will be closer to the original Greek than that of David Heart. Lattimore's life was spent as one of the greatest known translators of the Greek Classics. In the last years of his life he turned to translating the Scripture starting with Revelation. He came across an ancient manuscript of Revelation by accident and, well, you can look him up if interested for the rest of the story. Thank you for your discussions.
Saw this on Paul’s channel, that was a great dialogue full of great information and nuance. A big departure from where the argument quite often drifts as it trickles down. Loved the Tolkien examples. Very much looking forward to the release of the forthcoming videos mentioned within. When you said “God to infinity” beyond God 1 and God 2 that could be the means of stereoscopically seeing through I found hyper resonant. I’d love to see you talk again with Tom Cheetham on Corbin’s Tawhil in this regard, and the infinite transformations afforded in his gothic structure of transcending the cosmic crypt, or the idea of the world being spoken into being as the logos and a Bible/Koran that precedes man’s book that affords a wisdom structure for reading the original word, and each person being a religious book with their own history. I wonder what you think of his use of monadology as a way to nest multiple cosmologies/mythologies in one person as a means of dealing with issues of pluralism, or his section in Man of Light In Iranian Sufism on the Walkurja as a symbol that affords a place for pre-axial/monotheistic imagination in heirarchy to the religions of the book as a way to deal with that dimension of being without the backwards steps to literal primal warrior religions we are seeing, or Jung saw in his Wotan essay.
Always love when you gentlemen get together, hopefully Paul can join you and Jonathan again sometime soon. Paul always reminds me that I should care what my neighbor thinks and believes, although I almost never do, it’s good to hear every now and again. I did find it hilarious that Paul, a Protestant who pretty much only believes in the Bible and not tradition, would say that new things come for a reason when there is nothing new under the sun 😆 gotta pick on my non traditional dude, Paul the Iconoclast.
John I tried watching the meaning crisis, some other video of yours, and also ur conversations with other people like Jordan, Jonathan, and etc. However I'm still confused, forgive me, I'm not super well versed with cog sci stuff, or maybe its just me. Is it possible for you to do like a dumbed-down version of ur lectures? can be just like a one video summary or something (or series). Thanks!
Perhaps what Paul Tillich said about God as a person might address Vervaeke's struggle with the language issue. Tillich said that "God is not a person but he is not less than personal". People seem to want a relationship to what is ultimate and as finite creatures with our limited evolutionary capacities, I think there will always be personhood attributed to that ultimate. This seems particularly evident in times of trial when many turn to personified prayer. Perhaps it is enough to see this as a metaphor with deep and legitimate meaning but not as being literal.
John, i’ve been following your meditation course and in several points you mention a meditation manual you’ve written? Where can one find that text? Thank you for the answer and everything you’re doing - i hope you feel how important your work is to many of us.
I seem to see a "human spirit" but not a "spirit" named God. Is "the sacred" the human experience of human spirits and identification with experiencing spiritual "reality"?
At around 16 minutes he was saying that our experience of it is called sacredness. The cause of the sacredness is the sacred. Different people and cultures gave different accounts of what the sacred is. When you speak of the human spirit, I see quite a few people and cultures struggling to identify if that is something inside the person or an expression of a transcendent reality. At the beginning of the Bible it expresses this in 2 ways, God breathed the breath of life into man and God created man in his own image.
Someone should start a GoFundMe page to fly John and Paul to some middle territory where they can finally arm wrestle and figure out once and for all who’s right! ;)
My question is, in relation to so-called common theism, is this term referring to the diety as G-d the Creator, or G-d the Savior, G-d as a Benefactor, or all of the above?
Wow this was brilliant. For me the conversations that you've been having all seems to come together in this one. Especially when John said that Theism for him is spirituality without the structures of our organised religions (something like that anyway). Man I resonated with that. Would love to see these conversations conitue
I live these chats, thankyou. Thoughts: I wonder if the Deeper God, under 1 & 2, can be impersonal, personal and transcendent to both...this God seems to be a given in so much of Australian post Vatican 2 Catholicism but it seems that perhaps this water was muddied by the modes and mood of popular Christianity in North America. Also In light of this I wonder if 'the religion that is not a religion' falls into the same error as the new athiest characterisation of God...the 'religoon' of the deeper God would include John Vervaeke,s project so needn't be seen in opposition ie John's project is religious in the deeper sense so why enforce that distinction. Just thoughts.
Id suggest you understand the Law too narrowly - i know, Paul, you are very into Christine Hayes- i would suggest you read her Whats Divine about Divine Law to compare Biblical, Greek, Rabbinic and Christian approaches to human vs natural vs Divine Law to understand why your frames seem too reductionist for a fair reading of how Law can be conceived
So, rites are the basic "driving force" not only for constituting communities, but also more complex symbolic systems, one might call "religion" (according to European "high culture" traditions), "psycho-cosmologies", "epistemo-ontologies", "arch-principle teachings", you name it. And on the basic level, they are archaic "modules for/of change" (only to mention Van Gennep´s concept of the--on the minimum three-phased--"rites of passage"). That would be, i.m.o., another possible conclusion of a more general--maybe also, via abstraction/reduction, more basic--kind, harkening back to scholars like old Eastern Master Hánfeizî ("The rites are deep, indeed, miraculous, awesome, ..."), Cathrine Bell, and Clifford Geertz, combined with some Weberian hermeneutics and models, esp. regarding his comparative-sociological studies on religion(s), Husserlian "meditations", and so forth, only to name a few, i.m.o. relevant personalities and approaches. The search for certitude continues... PS.: Somehow Dao-Zen doesn´t seem to me to fit into the general schema -- including the whole metaphysical terminology used here, which sometimes seems getting so far from the "Lebenswelt" in the Husserlian sense, that it needs some "circling back", according to the "topology" of "higher" and "lower transcendences", but that´s another story. --- However, this would/should be the topic for a special discussion(-series), I suppose, which had to go into greater details, using primary sources, etc. Well, would be nice to see it happen. Greetings PS.: Sociology of knowledge has it that "a book is not a book, unless someone reads it" (an aphorism by T.W. Adorno, if I remember right). And the cultural-anthropologist Clifford Geertz used the example of a musical peace: it can/should not be reduced to the score, the instruments used, to the tones played, and so forth. In summa/synopsis, it "is" an organic, multidimensional polyvalent performance. This, i.m.o., also applies to the Protestant´s Bible. Inside this "organic" relation you may even discover some "magic" aspects, so that Max Weber´s critique of the Catholic´s "enchanted garden" could also be, mutatis mutandis, addressed towards the average Protestant, but that, again, is another story.
"Nature is contingent, excessive, and mystical. Nature exceeds the observable world of physical objects and includes its own virtual dimension, which however, is never beyond experience, hence ultimate understanding." Deleuze.
I'm curious John, why do you favor the "Below" over the "Above". Both exist. Any man intent on the truth would need to be well familiar with and know the value and meaning of both.
The Christian practice of punishing wrong doers - let alone threatening them with an eternity of hell fire - is the very worst possible plan of salvation ever conceived of …. Such unmitigated bullshite ….
One thing I love about Paul is he doesn’t exhibit the pride that I get a sense of in Christianity. So many Christian’s within Christianity want to be the gatekeeper for language and continue speaking “Christianese”, when, to Paul’s point, how early Christian’s talk about God and how the average Christian tends to today don’t even sound the same. Paul is willing to listen and learn and John definitely has so much for everyone to hear!
Call me triggered but I really take umbrage when a theist insists that I (a non-theist) have turned away from Judaeo-Christin values. Its a helluva generalization & sadly pregnant with accusation.
One of the things I’m most surprised about with these types of conversations is that pantheism isn’t mentioned as much as theism, atheism, and non-theism. I’d love to hear Vervaeke’s take on the parallels between non-theism and pantheism as well as the role of pantheism in the meaning crisis.
I have watched it and just wanted to appreciate you for that openness and precision as you dialogue with a reformed protestant Christian. What a meaningful and stretching conversation you had. I deeply admire your character, Dr. Vervaeke!
Just wanted to say thank you. I deeply appreciate your work. I'm trying to spend as much time as I can listening and absorbing knowledge. I don't know how but I hope some day I can contribute to your work and help spread it in my part of the world. Merely sharing and talking about it has helped me participate in true dialogos and deepen my understanding and perspective on the world. Once again - sincere gratitude, John.
p.s. I am reading and listening to many different topics and if not clearly see, I can definitely feel the thread of conectedness and convergence to what you are trying to bring to the world.
Thank you John thank you Paul for this please continue to have these conversations they are needed and necessary.
really looking forward to this John and PVK!
Wonderful conversation! I too am reading (slowly) through David Bentley Hart’s translation of the NT, and I agree it’s much weirder than the more familiar translations. I find myself sketching diagrams in the margins “Pageau-style” because the language “lands” in me as images. Hart’s book on the Experience of God (being, consciousness, bliss) also helped me recognize my common theistic errors… that God is not just a “super thing.” So glad to hear you’re engaging with Hart!
Thank you so much, John and Paul, for the genuine dialogos! It fills me with hope seeing you two having come so far to meet each other in the center. It is true grace that you took us along on this journey.
Wonderful conversation thank you John and Paul, so many intertwining threads brings oneness to two separate minds on different journeys.
Peace
ABSOLUTLY one of the most meaningful dia-logos I ever watched. Thanks both for showing how wisdom should be in thoughts and behavior. In Christianty I found a loving community that introduced me to the path of wisdom, yet with John V. teachings I realised the relevance of absolute truth for a meaningful life.
Thanks so much for this. John, I love where you're going in your quest. I think this might be the Uniting factor, the origin of both ways.
Thank you Sevilla. I hope you are well.
I am trying to find Tillich’s essay “the god beyond the god of theism” without success. John, would you be able to link a resource for this? Either here or on the discord server please?
Beautiful conversation. Thank you 🙏🏽❤️
1:50:20 Paul means here "The Divine Conspiracy" by Dallas Willard.
yes
Man, i wish these conversations were on Spotify
Yes, you nailed!
I have to do some work to get my podcast version of these on Spotify. I should do it.
@@PaulVanderKlay Hi Paul, that would be fantastic! Thanks for the reply
I used to wish there were conversations and others (like The Stoa) were on Spotify, then I bit the bullet and bought a TH-cam subscription so I could listen on the go and the TH-cam music app is way better than Spotify. I’d recommend making the change! If you use a VPN set to India (for example) you can get a cheap price I’ve been told.
John, I want to suggest that you get the New Testament translated by RICHMOND LATTIMORE. I can only expect that it will be closer to the original Greek than that of David Heart. Lattimore's life was spent as one of the greatest known translators of the Greek Classics.
In the last years of his life he turned to translating the Scripture starting with Revelation. He came across an ancient manuscript of Revelation by accident and, well, you can look him up if interested for the rest of the story. Thank you for your discussions.
Saw this on Paul’s channel, that was a great dialogue full of great information and nuance. A big departure from where the argument quite often drifts as it trickles down. Loved the Tolkien examples. Very much looking forward to the release of the forthcoming videos mentioned within.
When you said “God to infinity” beyond God 1 and God 2 that could be the means of stereoscopically seeing through I found hyper resonant. I’d love to see you talk again with Tom Cheetham on Corbin’s Tawhil in this regard, and the infinite transformations afforded in his gothic structure of transcending the cosmic crypt, or the idea of the world being spoken into being as the logos and a Bible/Koran that precedes man’s book that affords a wisdom structure for reading the original word, and each person being a religious book with their own history. I wonder what you think of his use of monadology as a way to nest multiple cosmologies/mythologies in one person as a means of dealing with issues of pluralism, or his section in Man of Light In Iranian Sufism on the Walkurja as a symbol that affords a place for pre-axial/monotheistic imagination in heirarchy to the religions of the book as a way to deal with that dimension of being without the backwards steps to literal primal warrior religions we are seeing, or Jung saw in his Wotan essay.
Always love when you gentlemen get together, hopefully Paul can join you and Jonathan again sometime soon. Paul always reminds me that I should care what my neighbor thinks and believes, although I almost never do, it’s good to hear every now and again. I did find it hilarious that Paul, a Protestant who pretty much only believes in the Bible and not tradition, would say that new things come for a reason when there is nothing new under the sun 😆 gotta pick on my non traditional dude, Paul the Iconoclast.
Ah...it's nice to see I'm not the only weirdo that reads 4-6 books at the same time.
Did John have a conversation with Bishop Barron? If so, does anyone know where I can find it?
It hasn't been released yet. Jordan Peterson will have it on his channel.
@@PaulVanderKlay Great 👍. Thank you for the reply. I am sure that will be interesting, as were your conversation with John.
Differentiation of the one.
You don't get identity before differentiation.
Every engine takes advantage of a difference.
We are in a "machine" age after all...
John I tried watching the meaning crisis, some other video of yours, and also ur conversations with other people like Jordan, Jonathan, and etc. However I'm still confused, forgive me, I'm not super well versed with cog sci stuff, or maybe its just me.
Is it possible for you to do like a dumbed-down version of ur lectures? can be just like a one video summary or something (or series). Thanks!
He just released this. This was a nice concise summary of a lot of what he talks about in AFTMC th-cam.com/video/Lbk3lA6zCic/w-d-xo.html
This is free.
Hard to believe, huh? You'll look fondly back on these days.
Scoping the Scene through the 3i'S of Autodidactic Reasoning -
•(inquire()Invest()inform)• .
Perhaps what Paul Tillich said about God as a person might address Vervaeke's struggle with the language issue. Tillich said that "God is not a person but he is not less than personal". People seem to want a relationship to what is ultimate and as finite creatures with our limited evolutionary capacities, I think there will always be personhood attributed to that ultimate. This seems particularly evident in times of trial when many turn to personified prayer. Perhaps it is enough to see this as a metaphor with deep and legitimate meaning but not as being literal.
John, i’ve been following your meditation course and in several points you mention a meditation manual you’ve written? Where can one find that text?
Thank you for the answer and everything you’re doing - i hope you feel how important your work is to many of us.
The supreme being vs the ground of being, is analogous to the set of all sets and the Russell paradoxon.
I seem to see a "human spirit" but not a "spirit" named God. Is "the sacred" the human experience of human spirits and identification with experiencing spiritual "reality"?
At around 16 minutes he was saying that our experience of it is called sacredness. The cause of the sacredness is the sacred. Different people and cultures gave different accounts of what the sacred is.
When you speak of the human spirit, I see quite a few people and cultures struggling to identify if that is something inside the person or an expression of a transcendent reality. At the beginning of the Bible it expresses this in 2 ways, God breathed the breath of life into man and God created man in his own image.
Someone should start a GoFundMe page to fly John and Paul to some middle territory where they can finally arm wrestle and figure out once and for all who’s right! ;)
If it is in Gods arena they'll both be found to be right.
My question is, in relation to so-called common theism, is this term referring to the diety as G-d the Creator, or G-d the Savior, G-d as a Benefactor, or all of the above?
Wow this was brilliant. For me the conversations that you've been having all seems to come together in this one. Especially when John said that Theism for him is spirituality without the structures of our organised religions (something like that anyway). Man I resonated with that. Would love to see these conversations conitue
I live these chats, thankyou.
Thoughts:
I wonder if the Deeper God, under 1 & 2, can be impersonal, personal and transcendent to both...this God seems to be a given in so much of Australian post Vatican 2 Catholicism but it seems that perhaps this water was muddied by the modes and mood of popular Christianity in North America.
Also
In light of this I wonder if 'the religion that is not a religion' falls into the same error as the new athiest characterisation of God...the 'religoon' of the deeper God would include John Vervaeke,s project so needn't be seen in opposition ie John's project is religious in the deeper sense so why enforce that distinction.
Just thoughts.
These are good thoughts. Thank you.
@@johnvervaeke thanks for everything you do John.
Id suggest you understand the Law too narrowly - i know, Paul, you are very into Christine Hayes- i would suggest you read her Whats Divine about Divine Law to compare Biblical, Greek, Rabbinic and Christian approaches to human vs natural vs Divine Law to understand why your frames seem too reductionist for a fair reading of how Law can be conceived
So, rites are the basic "driving force" not only for constituting communities, but also more complex symbolic systems, one might call "religion" (according to European "high culture" traditions), "psycho-cosmologies", "epistemo-ontologies", "arch-principle teachings", you name it. And on the basic level, they are archaic "modules for/of change" (only to mention Van Gennep´s concept of the--on the minimum three-phased--"rites of passage").
That would be, i.m.o., another possible conclusion of a more general--maybe also, via abstraction/reduction, more basic--kind, harkening back to scholars like old Eastern Master Hánfeizî ("The rites are deep, indeed, miraculous, awesome, ..."), Cathrine Bell, and Clifford Geertz, combined with some Weberian hermeneutics and models, esp. regarding his comparative-sociological studies on religion(s), Husserlian "meditations", and so forth, only to name a few, i.m.o. relevant personalities and approaches. The search for certitude continues...
PS.: Somehow Dao-Zen doesn´t seem to me to fit into the general schema -- including the whole metaphysical terminology used here, which sometimes seems getting so far from the "Lebenswelt" in the Husserlian sense, that it needs some "circling back", according to the "topology" of "higher" and "lower transcendences", but that´s another story. --- However, this would/should be the topic for a special discussion(-series), I suppose, which had to go into greater details, using primary sources, etc. Well, would be nice to see it happen.
Greetings
PS.: Sociology of knowledge has it that "a book is not a book, unless someone reads it" (an aphorism by T.W. Adorno, if I remember right). And the cultural-anthropologist Clifford Geertz used the example of a musical peace: it can/should not be reduced to the score, the instruments used, to the tones played, and so forth. In summa/synopsis, it "is" an organic, multidimensional polyvalent performance. This, i.m.o., also applies to the Protestant´s Bible. Inside this "organic" relation you may even discover some "magic" aspects, so that Max Weber´s critique of the Catholic´s "enchanted garden" could also be, mutatis mutandis, addressed towards the average Protestant, but that, again, is another story.
This was really useful. I’d love both of you to discuss Mcgilchrist’s conception of “the sacred” in his new book.
"Nature is contingent, excessive, and mystical. Nature exceeds the observable world of physical objects and includes its own virtual dimension, which however, is never beyond experience, hence ultimate understanding." Deleuze.
Can I ask where Deleuze says this?
@@marelrehana7080 hi, give me a sec. I think I wrote this down from a piece exploring a Deleuzian Cartography applied to the Tarot.
35:00 "Doo-doo." Hmm, a lot of food for thought here. Doo-doo, indeed.
#dialogos
All material interpretations are bounded by metaphysical presuppositions.
😀
All metaphysical interpretations are bounded by material presuppositions.
@@martinzarathustra8604 one might call this the "natural hermeneutic circle".
@@martinzarathustra8604 John said as much.
I'm curious John, why do you favor the "Below" over the "Above". Both exist. Any man intent on the truth would need to be well familiar with and know the value and meaning of both.
The World Tree - the source of all religions (& Truth) 🙂
The Christian practice of punishing wrong doers - let alone threatening them with an eternity of hell fire - is the very worst possible plan of salvation ever conceived of ….
Such unmitigated bullshite ….
You don’t just let anyone into your house do you?
One thing I love about Paul is he doesn’t exhibit the pride that I get a sense of in Christianity. So many Christian’s within Christianity want to be the gatekeeper for language and continue speaking “Christianese”, when, to Paul’s point, how early Christian’s talk about God and how the average Christian tends to today don’t even sound the same. Paul is willing to listen and learn and John definitely has so much for everyone to hear!
The guy on the right looks like the
Well, as he said, he's certainly been accused of it.
@@aqualityexistence4842 an accusation of sorts
Call me triggered but I really take umbrage when a theist insists that I (a non-theist) have turned away from Judaeo-Christin values. Its a helluva generalization & sadly pregnant with accusation.
I love listening. God jumped of mount olympus and lived 100 billion endings each kissed with eternality, but can he survive his self, lol
One of the things I’m most surprised about with these types of conversations is that pantheism isn’t mentioned as much as theism, atheism, and non-theism. I’d love to hear Vervaeke’s take on the parallels between non-theism and pantheism as well as the role of pantheism in the meaning crisis.
No, your "non"-theism is problematic! Neoplatonism is theistic so don't be a hypocrite!! (Dictionary on non-theism???)