The ending discussion on COVID and vaccination is the best reflection on that time that I have yet heard. If possible I would love that section excerpted somehow.
John is one of the most profound gist extractors and high-level associative reasoning experts I have ever heard speak. He embodies the Socratic method consciously and powerfully within himself, playing with his own vocabulary and that of other great thinkers to generate connectedness between reason and the embodied, divine nature of being, helping others to explore the meaning of their own existence through an ever-expanding frame. What a wonderful service to humanity! Absolutely expansive! Thank you.
The consistency in the high quality of these conversations is simply astounding. What I liked about this episode in particular was the last topic discussed and the exemplification of many of the concepts discussed in the context of an event with significant historical importance such as the last 2-3 years of our history as a species.
I’ve been writing about you two. Most likely I'll never share with anyone (in full) what I’ve been writing, but I do want to share this: I write about ὁ καινόϛ διδάσκαλος and ὁ καλόϛ φιλόσοφοϛ. I'm so enamoured of the two of you! And, based on what I hear people say, I'm not alone in my adoration. :)
First 30 seconds, absolutely 💯 👌. This is what makes all systematizing and even academic thinking venomous at times. It almost talks to itself and loses everyone else.
I love the vigorous energy between John and Christopher, making it so captivating. And I'm slowly understanding this difficult subject with deeper interest. Thank you both for your teaching, with immense gratitude.
Decision as necessarily being intentional to be “true” in the subjective sense is fantastic, thank you both. Looking forward to the next episode being uploading
Early on the idea that the writer (e.g. Kierkegaard) is addressing you, is like the theology of icons. We sometimes think of them as windows into heaven, but the reverse perspective seems to imply that they see us, they confront us, even as they reveal... something like that...
32:52 : YES! I can totally relate to this in my own experience. The tension lasts awhile and makes a trajectory that can be harness towards a apiration towards the aiming of the good. Love to witness the openness, the truthfulness and the mood of reverence you Guy's are exemplifying ❤
Awesome~ will be back later today. Had several opportunities this week to apply Kierkegaard's principle of not thinking oneself into a monad state, when the ball is dropped or life throws a random spanner.
Catching up. Fantastic series. Deeply engaging and have learnt a ton. However, and it's not a but, it often feels like eavesdropping on a conversation between two friends or lovers where despite how vociferous and eloquent the interlocution is and the effort made to make things explicit, a lot of the communication is either between the lines or just simply goes unsaid due to the length of time both have spent with each other. That said, great effort. Also, some of the content at the end felt a bit forced and cliched in order to make it relevant to the idea at hand. Maybe I shouldn't comment when tired and groggy. Remember though, I thoroughly enjoyed this and am grateful to both. Thankyou for these deeply interesting glimpses into what's truly possible when two like-minded people riff.
In contemplating the Fall and Grace as phenomenological experiences, we discern a profound interplay between finite transcendence, existential nature, and essential nature. The Fall, emphasizing our existential nature, boldly illustrates the limitations and finiteness of human existence-our inherent imperfections and susceptibilities. Conversely, Grace, through the lens of finite transcendence, offers a transcendent experience that suggests a surpassing of these limitations, revealing a deeper aspect of our essential nature aligned with metanoia and transformation. This dialectic between the existential and the essential, between finitude and transcendence, vividly captures the contrasts and potentials of human experience. This is the source of our tragic joy/suffering in this existence.
I don't really care what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism is moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
How I got to Christ, Spurgeon, Stoisom, Oswald Chambers, William Tyndale, Ancient Civilizations from Africa (West) to Mexico & South America (still digging), Luther, Calvin, Miles Munroe, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Vervaeke and now Mastropietro....thank you all and all in-between not mentioned.
We don’t exist objectively but as relationships with other people. I think this is the same experience we have with meeting anyone. We don’t meet them objectively but as a relationship between ourselves and them.
awesome concepts and emphasis on the subjective and personal aspects of our lives, how we all long for authentic experience, and also going against the grain as we choose to, being free to do so, and in this growing and expanding our intimate and personal relationship with life itself
I believe one thing that contextualize why Kierkegaard experienced it in a more "neurotic" way than Socrates, is the Romantic arena in which he was an agent
The exchange rate of ideas is infinite. Flourishing has a rhythm. If you are waiting for something to happen, it is happening. You're just standing in the wrong place. The world has become a much smaller place, there is no longer room for hatred. Great souls have always stood at the crossroads pointing the way but it is the folly of men that they love the sound of their own voice. The surest cure for selfishness is to continually practice random acts of kindness. Knowledge dilutes imagination.
When you make the distinction between common subjectivity and Kierkegaard's I immediately phrased it in Spanish as sujectivity; see in spanish you use both subjetivo and sujeto, which I think refers more properly to the fact that subjective is the way in which it relates to me as a being (correct me if I'm wrong). Also by removing the sub part of it you make it... less underneath
I found myself wishing that Gregg Henriques was in this discussion so we could incorporate a psychologist perspective. It seems like you both were reaching down into the psychological foundations of humanity.
The relationship between form and flow is a fundamental concept that underlies our understanding of the physical world around us. The form of a physical environment dictates the flow of action and interaction within that environment, while the flow of action and interaction, in turn, shapes the form of the environment. This interdependent relationship can be observed in a variety of contexts, from the movement of a river through a landscape to the behavior of human beings in the world. In the case of a river, the form of the landscape dictates the flow of water, which in turn shapes the form of the landscape over time. As the river meanders through the landscape, it creates new channels and deposits sediment, shaping the landscape in a continuous process of evolution. Similarly, in the case of human movement and behavior, the features of our physical environment can dictate the flow of our actions and interactions. For example, a staircase can lead people to move in a certain direction, a doorway can create a point of entry or exit, and a park can create a gathering space for people to interact. At the same time, our movements and interactions can shape the features of our environment over time. In both of these examples, we can see how the relationship between form and flow is recursive and evolves over time, as our actions and interactions shape the physical environment and the physical environment, in turn, shapes our actions and interactions. But the interdependent relationship between form and flow goes beyond the physical environment. It also extends to the symbolic and cultural meanings that are associated with a place, creating what is known as a meaning landscape. The meaning landscape of a place can shape how people perceive and interact with that environment. For example, a historical site may evoke a sense of reverence or awe, while a bustling city street may inspire a feeling of energy and excitement. Similarly, our movements and interactions can shape the meaning landscape of a place over time. So, how can we use this understanding of the interdependent relationship between form and flow to design and manage physical environments in a way that supports positive movements and interactions, while also promoting ecological health and cultural richness? Firstly, we can prioritize the preservation and promotion of natural ecological processes in the design of our physical environments, allowing the form and flow of natural systems to shape and inform our actions and interactions. Secondly, we can incorporate an understanding of the meaning landscape of a place into the design of our physical environments, allowing the symbolic and cultural meanings of a place to inform our actions and interactions. Ultimately, by recognizing the interdependent relationship between form and flow, we can create physical environments that support positive movements and interactions, while also respecting the natural processes of evolution and promoting ecological health and cultural richness. Vervaeke emphasizes the idea that play is not just a frivolous activity, but can actually be a means of engaging with the world in a more meaningful and creative way. According to Vervaeke, serious play involves a state of flow, where the activity is challenging enough to be engaging, but not so difficult as to be overwhelming. In this state of flow, we become fully absorbed in the activity, and our attention is fully focused on the task at hand. I have coined a term "Flow Dictates Form as Form Dictates Flow". Applying this to Vervaeke's concept of serious play, where flow of activity within a play space shapes its design and organization, just as the design of the space can shape the flow of activity within it. By creating a spaces that optimize for the practice of serious play, we can enhance the experience of flow and make it more likely that players will achieve a state of optimal engagement and creativity.
as is brought up, what one can never say 'this is this and this will always be this', that's where people can get scared and of course others can abuse this, because people want certainty and not to live in the anxiety of not knowing. but the road never ends, one has to embrace that
I'm unjabbed because the risk/benefit was never in my favour despite being in my 50s. And history will prove this was a wise decision. Bugger all to do with narcissism. Otherwise enjoying this series chaps!
I am betrothed to the telos of becoming wise. Like a north star, this end has put a cosmos in the sequence of episodes of my life. Like the race between Achilles and tortoise, I am every proceeding and the star is ever stepping , as time slows and union nears. If I understand this dialectically, then perhaps I have loved god all my life. Finally! The gap between Achilles and the tortoise is the tonos between the finite and the infinite, between the limited and the completely perfect. I have a word for it now. tonos.
@@Aquaticphilosophiado you mean he induces John to actually see from the beginners perspective, like he brings him back to the state of being a beginner is in?
Can we say "someone came from a flower" and be satisfied with that? ... or does the person who see's someone appearing from what looked like a flower, need time to form the words to precisely make the thing relatable for other people to interpret the levels of magnitude the image actually means 🤔?
I think I've had a similar experience, of reframing, the stepping back and entering back into seems a necessity of maintaining alignment. That said Ballance. To avoid being trapped in a kind of half Socratic loop of examination, where examination is interpreted as only questioning. Maybe the Answer is in the Question¿ Who am I and where am I to be? 😁👍
What does truth has to be sharable mean? Facts or meaning are sharable. Truth appears to wear many definitions. I prefer a secure foundation or the perfect symmetry of relationship.
This is joke but honor for the two proponents talking: John and Christopher are tall men, they can breathe upper air which I couldn't try, so I wonder how it is feeling ^^ I know how to breathe in and out, I'm inexperienced man both men experienced--(scholarship major) I learned much from this talk.
I'm confused. I keep trying to make sense of a chaotic world. I guess my question is, does life make sense, is there such a thing as justice? What is justice exactly, or can we even really define it? Scales measuring mass make complete sense, but morality? How do we weigh such things? So, is life completely just, or is it unjust? How is it fair, that I'm alive, while others didn't even make it out of the womb? I'm a fool that wondered in where even angels feared to tread, yet I live? How is that fair? What is God thinking, if there is one? I think, I might, be suffering from survivors guilt. I'm not really sure of anything, which feels like floating. I seek clarity, but only find murkiness. Who am I really? Why am I here? What is my context, my motivation for even being? Where did I come from, and for how long? What is the point, after all? Why is there such a thing as quicksand? Maybe I should just eat a sandwich and take a nap. Things might be more clear to me after that. Why, I don't know.
If you focus on something too objectively, you as a subject will vanish, if you make it fully objective exercise The more Kierkegaard twists and turns, the less you see his writing as an object/objective and more as someone subjective. Intersubjective - because you are also learning about yourself through this dialogue. Trying to disabuse people of propositional tyranny people bring to philosophy
Marriage - canonical symbol for either/or decision. Make inward the tension dialectic between state of being now and not getting away from it Vs possibility befirr eternity. Pressurised, crystallised, decision becomes possible. Don't look left or right to look for decision because don't know sum of consequences. The measure itself is decision (aspirational authentic selfhood) it's not known through objective measure but only through character of own felt sense
Relation with god is also intersubjective - self realisation as opposed to external choices Subjectivity - aspirational selfhood (related to truth - different from Cartesian truth), not cartesian, perspective and participatory knowing. Subjectivity requires dynamic relationship with conditions of existence Subjectivity opens oneself up to world, not closing in private mind.
Process of reason is as important as product of reason. Question the good that the crowd announces. COVID - people made a decision based on higher good not on material, crowd, consequence
philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas I was with you until you started accusing philosophers in general, I guess, of coming up with their philosophies just to justify blatantly immoral behaviors. After that I lost interest. I have read many of the philosophers you don't name, but apparently are thinking of. And anybody else who has read them would not say what you say.
The ending discussion on COVID and vaccination is the best reflection on that time that I have yet heard. If possible I would love that section excerpted somehow.
John is one of the most profound gist extractors and high-level associative reasoning experts I have ever heard speak. He embodies the Socratic method consciously and powerfully within himself, playing with his own vocabulary and that of other great thinkers to generate connectedness between reason and the embodied, divine nature of being, helping others to explore the meaning of their own existence through an ever-expanding frame. What a wonderful service to humanity! Absolutely expansive! Thank you.
minus the covert neurosociological engineering/pipeline that is taking place without disclosure
Why doesn't Christopher have a channel. I need more content from him!
The consistency in the high quality of these conversations is simply astounding. What I liked about this episode in particular was the last topic discussed and the exemplification of many of the concepts discussed in the context of an event with significant historical importance such as the last 2-3 years of our history as a species.
By no means do I wish to masquarade as someone who has the educational background to fully understand the conversation, but I love it.
This is the Jazz I needed. It's 4am.
57:33 the last 20 minutes of this isbjust brilliant.
I’ve been writing about you two. Most likely I'll never share with anyone (in full) what I’ve been writing, but I do want to share this: I write about ὁ καινόϛ διδάσκαλος and ὁ καλόϛ φιλόσοφοϛ. I'm so enamoured of the two of you! And, based on what I hear people say, I'm not alone in my adoration. :)
Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
First 30 seconds, absolutely 💯 👌. This is what makes all systematizing and even academic thinking venomous at times. It almost talks to itself and loses everyone else.
I love the vigorous energy between John and Christopher, making it so captivating. And I'm slowly understanding this difficult subject with deeper interest. Thank you both for your teaching, with immense gratitude.
I've loved those last episodes with Chris.
Love you class! Tank you!
Decision as necessarily being intentional to be “true” in the subjective sense is fantastic, thank you both.
Looking forward to the next episode being uploading
Wonderful dialectice Congrats for that nice discussion Mr Vervaeke
I'm so thankfull for You making such available, it realy feels soothing to listen to, listen inn. Thamks for this an so much more.
Early on the idea that the writer (e.g. Kierkegaard) is addressing you, is like the theology of icons. We sometimes think of them as windows into heaven, but the reverse perspective seems to imply that they see us, they confront us, even as they reveal... something like that...
32:52 : YES! I can totally relate to this in my own experience. The tension lasts awhile and makes a trajectory that can be harness towards a apiration towards the aiming of the good. Love to witness the openness, the truthfulness and the mood of reverence you Guy's are exemplifying ❤
Just wonderful. Thank you Chris and John 🙏
Awesome~ will be back later today. Had several opportunities this week to apply Kierkegaard's principle of not thinking oneself into a monad state, when the ball is dropped or life throws a random spanner.
Catching up. Fantastic series. Deeply engaging and have learnt a ton. However, and it's not a but, it often feels like eavesdropping on a conversation between two friends or lovers where despite how vociferous and eloquent the interlocution is and the effort made to make things explicit, a lot of the communication is either between the lines or just simply goes unsaid due to the length of time both have spent with each other. That said, great effort. Also, some of the content at the end felt a bit forced and cliched in order to make it relevant to the idea at hand. Maybe I shouldn't comment when tired and groggy. Remember though, I thoroughly enjoyed this and am grateful to both. Thankyou for these deeply interesting glimpses into what's truly possible when two like-minded people riff.
In contemplating the Fall and Grace as phenomenological experiences, we discern a profound interplay between finite transcendence, existential nature, and essential nature. The Fall, emphasizing our existential nature, boldly illustrates the limitations and finiteness of human existence-our inherent imperfections and susceptibilities. Conversely, Grace, through the lens of finite transcendence, offers a transcendent experience that suggests a surpassing of these limitations, revealing a deeper aspect of our essential nature aligned with metanoia and transformation. This dialectic between the existential and the essential, between finitude and transcendence, vividly captures the contrasts and potentials of human experience. This is the source of our tragic joy/suffering in this existence.
How is this possible! What else is possible then.
That last bit was a really good suprise.
😂❤We needed this guys
I love that idea of the meta-dialectic-into-dialogos between intersubjective self-discovery and self-inquiry in solitude.
I don't really care what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence.
The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics.
Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial?
Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses?
Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism is moral?
Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous?
If so, then you are objectively immoral and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
Loved this. Thank you both.
How I got to Christ, Spurgeon, Stoisom, Oswald Chambers, William Tyndale, Ancient Civilizations from Africa (West) to Mexico & South America (still digging), Luther, Calvin, Miles Munroe, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Vervaeke and now Mastropietro....thank you all and all in-between not mentioned.
We don’t exist objectively but as relationships with other people. I think this is the same experience we have with meeting anyone. We don’t meet them objectively but as a relationship between ourselves and them.
“There’s a sense that you shape yourself to the true-line, such that a real affordance of navigation becomes possible for you.”
awesome concepts and emphasis on the subjective and personal aspects of our lives, how we all long for authentic experience, and also going against the grain as we choose to, being free to do so, and in this growing and expanding our intimate and personal relationship with life itself
I believe one thing that contextualize why Kierkegaard experienced it in a more "neurotic" way than Socrates, is the Romantic arena in which he was an agent
The exchange rate of ideas is infinite.
Flourishing has a rhythm.
If you are waiting for something to happen, it is happening. You're just standing in the wrong place.
The world has become a much smaller place, there is no longer room for hatred.
Great souls have always stood at the crossroads pointing the way but it is the folly of men that they love the sound of their own voice.
The surest cure for selfishness is to continually practice random acts of kindness.
Knowledge dilutes imagination.
@johnvervaeke would you say kierkegaard's concept of subjectivity is something like what you mean by the transjective?
Thanks to you both this was wonderful ❤
When you make the distinction between common subjectivity and Kierkegaard's I immediately phrased it in Spanish as sujectivity; see in spanish you use both subjetivo and sujeto, which I think refers more properly to the fact that subjective is the way in which it relates to me as a being (correct me if I'm wrong). Also by removing the sub part of it you make it... less underneath
I found myself wishing that Gregg Henriques was in this discussion so we could incorporate a psychologist perspective.
It seems like you both were reaching down into the psychological foundations of humanity.
The relationship between form and flow is a fundamental concept that underlies our understanding of the physical world around us. The form of a physical environment dictates the flow of action and interaction within that environment, while the flow of action and interaction, in turn, shapes the form of the environment.
This interdependent relationship can be observed in a variety of contexts, from the movement of a river through a landscape to the behavior of human beings in the world.
In the case of a river, the form of the landscape dictates the flow of water, which in turn shapes the form of the landscape over time. As the river meanders through the landscape, it creates new channels and deposits sediment, shaping the landscape in a continuous process of evolution.
Similarly, in the case of human movement and behavior, the features of our physical environment can dictate the flow of our actions and interactions. For example, a staircase can lead people to move in a certain direction, a doorway can create a point of entry or exit, and a park can create a gathering space for people to interact. At the same time, our movements and interactions can shape the features of our environment over time.
In both of these examples, we can see how the relationship between form and flow is recursive and evolves over time, as our actions and interactions shape the physical environment and the physical environment, in turn, shapes our actions and interactions.
But the interdependent relationship between form and flow goes beyond the physical environment. It also extends to the symbolic and cultural meanings that are associated with a place, creating what is known as a meaning landscape.
The meaning landscape of a place can shape how people perceive and interact with that environment. For example, a historical site may evoke a sense of reverence or awe, while a bustling city street may inspire a feeling of energy and excitement. Similarly, our movements and interactions can shape the meaning landscape of a place over time.
So, how can we use this understanding of the interdependent relationship between form and flow to design and manage physical environments in a way that supports positive movements and interactions, while also promoting ecological health and cultural richness?
Firstly, we can prioritize the preservation and promotion of natural ecological processes in the design of our physical environments, allowing the form and flow of natural systems to shape and inform our actions and interactions.
Secondly, we can incorporate an understanding of the meaning landscape of a place into the design of our physical environments, allowing the symbolic and cultural meanings of a place to inform our actions and interactions.
Ultimately, by recognizing the interdependent relationship between form and flow, we can create physical environments that support positive movements and interactions, while also respecting the natural processes of evolution and promoting ecological health and cultural richness.
Vervaeke emphasizes the idea that play is not just a frivolous activity, but can actually be a means of engaging with the world in a more meaningful and creative way. According to Vervaeke, serious play involves a state of flow, where the activity is challenging enough to be engaging, but not so difficult as to be overwhelming. In this state of flow, we become fully absorbed in the activity, and our attention is fully focused on the task at hand.
I have coined a term "Flow Dictates Form as Form Dictates Flow". Applying this to Vervaeke's concept of serious play, where flow of activity within a play space shapes its design and organization, just as the design of the space can shape the flow of activity within it. By creating a spaces that optimize for the practice of serious play, we can enhance the experience of flow and make it more likely that players will achieve a state of optimal engagement and creativity.
as is brought up, what one can never say 'this is this and this will always be this', that's where people can get scared and of course others can abuse this, because people want certainty and not to live in the anxiety of not knowing. but the road never ends, one has to embrace that
I'm unjabbed because the risk/benefit was never in my favour despite being in my 50s. And history will prove this was a wise decision. Bugger all to do with narcissism. Otherwise enjoying this series chaps!
100%
What is this in reference to and we most certainly were not given informed consent about the jab. How did you know not to?
@@domenicpiscitelli2629 Trust in your own immune system to start with.. Mistrust of industrialised health care..
I am betrothed to the telos of becoming wise. Like a north star, this end has put a cosmos in the sequence of episodes of my life. Like the race between Achilles and tortoise, I am every proceeding and the star is ever stepping , as time slows and union nears. If I understand this dialectically, then perhaps I have loved god all my life. Finally! The gap between Achilles and the tortoise is the tonos between the finite and the infinite, between the limited and the completely perfect. I have a word for it now. tonos.
Kierkegaard, an existential shaman... and follower of Christ...a man of FAITH including faith in the mind.
Christopher makes John more truthful
How so?
@@ReverendDr.Thomas John just pretends to have beginners mind most of the time and Christopher actually induces it.
@@Aquaticphilosophia, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@Aquaticphilosophiado you mean he induces John to actually see from the beginners perspective, like he brings him back to the state of being a beginner is in?
@@seanteoh98 sure
When the spirit attaches itself to the Munchausen or the Egregore, the self is diluted beyond its ability to discern.
Can we say "someone came from a flower" and be satisfied with that? ... or does the person who see's someone appearing from what looked like a flower, need time to form the words to precisely make the thing relatable for other people to interpret the levels of magnitude the image actually means 🤔?
🪷
@@_ARCATEC_ aww I missed you! 💗 This one is actually a difficult one to sit with. So I'm doing little bits at a time 😬
I think I've had a similar experience, of reframing, the stepping back and entering back into seems a necessity of maintaining alignment. That said Ballance. To avoid being trapped in a kind of half Socratic loop of examination, where examination is interpreted as only questioning. Maybe the Answer is in the Question¿ Who am I and where am I to be? 😁👍
Loop and leap
'Nothingness' is the absence of variation at every scale.
Right timing
What does truth has to be sharable mean?
Facts or meaning are sharable. Truth appears to wear many definitions.
I prefer a secure foundation or the perfect symmetry of relationship.
This is joke but honor for the two proponents talking: John and Christopher are tall men, they can breathe upper air which I couldn't try, so I wonder how it is feeling ^^ I know how to breathe in and out, I'm inexperienced man both men experienced--(scholarship major) I learned much from this talk.
❤
Intelligence is no protection from bias.
I'm confused. I keep trying to make sense of a chaotic world. I guess my question is, does life make sense, is there such a thing as justice? What is justice exactly, or can we even really define it? Scales measuring mass make complete sense, but morality? How do we weigh such things? So, is life completely just, or is it unjust? How is it fair, that I'm alive, while others didn't even make it out of the womb? I'm a fool that wondered in where even angels feared to tread, yet I live? How is that fair? What is God thinking, if there is one? I think, I might, be suffering from survivors guilt. I'm not really sure of anything, which feels like floating. I seek clarity, but only find murkiness. Who am I really? Why am I here? What is my context, my motivation for even being? Where did I come from, and for how long? What is the point, after all? Why is there such a thing as quicksand? Maybe I should just eat a sandwich and take a nap. Things might be more clear to me after that. Why, I don't know.
1:00:00 kierkegaarde the wig story
cool badger socks
loved the conversation about deciding to get vaccinated...but i reject Chris’ idea that going with crowd means you haven’t made a true decision
If you focus on something too objectively, you as a subject will vanish, if you make it fully objective exercise
The more Kierkegaard twists and turns, the less you see his writing as an object/objective and more as someone subjective. Intersubjective - because you are also learning about yourself through this dialogue.
Trying to disabuse people of propositional tyranny people bring to philosophy
Marriage - canonical symbol for either/or decision. Make inward the tension dialectic between state of being now and not getting away from it Vs possibility befirr eternity. Pressurised, crystallised, decision becomes possible. Don't look left or right to look for decision because don't know sum of consequences. The measure itself is decision (aspirational authentic selfhood) it's not known through objective measure but only through character of own felt sense
Relation with god is also intersubjective - self realisation as opposed to external choices
Subjectivity - aspirational selfhood (related to truth - different from Cartesian truth), not cartesian, perspective and participatory knowing. Subjectivity requires dynamic relationship with conditions of existence
Subjectivity opens oneself up to world, not closing in private mind.
Despair not being able to change and seeing the opportunity for transformation. Frustration
Finite transcendence felt tragically or farcically (neitzche) not some peaceful thing
Process of reason is as important as product of reason. Question the good that the crowd announces.
COVID - people made a decision based on higher good not on material, crowd, consequence
Faith is not belief in spite of the evidence, it is doing in spite of the consequences.
😭
Existential philosopher as Andy Warhol
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas I was with you until you started accusing philosophers in general, I guess, of coming up with their philosophies just to justify blatantly immoral behaviors. After that I lost interest. I have read many of the philosophers you don't name, but apparently are thinking of. And anybody else who has read them would not say what you say.
@@longcastle4863, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
This looks like the begging of the end of Christian fundamentalism.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Sorin Kierkegaard.
plato stanford edu entries kierkegaard