49:40 - Schindler continuously amazes me with his ability to balance on the razors edge of the rational and the mysterious. I hope to emulate that quality.
I mean unsparingly as TLCs resident Sophiology and Anthroposophy guy I have a lot to say about where you landed at the end. I think this connection between Sophia and Geist is a great framing for a conversation between JDW, Dr. Schindler and myself. I was thinking something along the lines of is Maximus the better version of Hegel, but this I think is better.
Thank you for another enlightening dialogos ! At the end David expressed how happy and light he feels during and after these conversations. I experience the same feelings watching and listening, smiling and nodding along and stretching to apprehend. Also at the end the discussion turned to the meaning of history, which immediately brought to mind Teilhard de Chardin, whose thought and writings have inspired me for many years. The God of Evolution, the Geist.
I really have been loving and enjoying these conversations, thank you all! I’m thinking about this idea of mystery and how in Hegel ultimately there is no place for mystery, everything is to be excavated by reason. But mystery understood as excess of intelligibility can be understood as a requirement for knowledge. I’m thinking of Karl Rahner here. He seems like the most anti-Hegelian thinker in one sense, that is because God as ground of all reality is understood as Absolute Mystery, and will always remain so. In his transcendental philosophy we have a pre-apprehension of this mystery which is the ground for recognizing any particular object of knowledge, as it is the backdrop or horizon against which we can recognize any finite being. So reason will not conquer all like in Hegel but is actually related to Mystery in a deep way. As he says in Foundations of Christian Faith : “All clear understanding is grounded in the darkness of God” (pp.19-20)
This goes into new places. David's insights about Hegel and Aristotle are excellent. I was recommended the Nicomachean Ethics and right out of the gate, he attacks and rejects the idea of transcendent good. Very materialistic ultimately. He does have plenty of value, but also some issues. The unpacking of what we mean by understanding was very, very helpful. Thank you all for this amazing discussion! 🙏
1:08:31 Ken - SO grateful you mentioned this book by Pramuk! I've been reading (and re-reading) for a few days now after ordering on AMAZON... An *amazing* book... I had NO idea of the convergence of Zen and Russian Sophiology in Merton (while I have read him off and on for years) - The things expressed in this book are (to me) breath taking (so far)... (I highly recommend the interview on RESISTANCE RECOVERY channel with Pramuk if you haven't seen it!) Watching your latest dialogos with these two wonderful interlocutors (and Pageau included as well in the newest discussion) Thanks for what you do ❤
Ken, I so appreciate the way that you hold space for these two men, two of my favorite thinkers, in such a way that I can approach their work and absorb it. I think your presence and engagement with them somehow affords me the ability to understand and relate to what they are saying, even though I have so little studied knowledge on all the ideas they expound. So much reading to catch up on. Thank you for this, this series is truly a gift! Thank you so much John and Dr Schindler, please keep it up!
1:08:58 The only true language and true knowledge, I would propose, is "my own language". Which is why good education says, "what does that mean *in your own words*?". Repeating, even exceptionally well, other people's language (which is also inevitable and necessary) is ultimately lacking in the fullness of "knowing as you ought to know". imo
I think I can retire, because John has picked up the thing I am always talking about. I don't think you can find even a single Grail Country episode where I am not talking about this.
49:35 I’d really love someone to get into why analogy is key here and key in general? The idea that we have some understanding (based in our experience) of a concept (such as creativity) and then we extend that to God. I love it because it makes God relatable and sensible (as opposed to a meaningless all-explanatory principle). But is that the only reason analogy is the rule - that it helps me make sense of God to myself? Is it grounded in anything deeper than that?
Its grounded insofar as God is cause of all things. So what is and is not, is virtually in him. What is motion for us, is perfection in Him. St Maximus writes, “understand motion is something that happens to us, not in the Godhead”. So when we say “God has moved the heart”, understand the analogy. That God did not move so the heart may move. Rather contemplate how God is both love and lovable? By descending into the creature, or to speak more truthfully, raising us to His impenetrable light, and piercing us with the divine rays. So God is love as his motion terminating in the creation, to empower it back to him. But remains in Himself what pleases this motion. Till finally on that day, there will be no motion; no seas and ocean. Here is this quote from Victorinus: “There are in all things an appropriate "to be,” “to live,” “to understand," to feel," so that these are the shadow or the image of three highest of all. Therefore God, although He is, as is affirmed by all, the one and the only one, some, however, have said that God is the one that is all, and not the one. For He is “principle of all things.” Therefore, “not all but all in a transcendent mode". But this is the reason for this first, indeed, that God is one and alone. Because these three do not result from composition, but since being each one what they are, they are also, by that fact, the two others, we believe. So that they are necessarily one and only one, with no kind of otherness of this we have often spoken. Indeed, as for what was said "one that is all and not one, for the principle of all,” does not this expression evidently and clearly designate God the Father of “all things and their principle," who "since He is not one” is rather, “all things.” Because He is cause and "principle” of all things and He is in all things. But since we have said that God is a certain act which is “to live,” but the “to live" above all “to live.” To live" from eternity to eternity. A notion simultaneously comprising “to be” and "to understand"-and this simultaneously must be taken in such a way that there is not a shadow of composition…Indeed, although He is the "to be” of all things, the "to live” of all things, the "to understand" of all things, and He is that while being one. and one without the least appearance of otherness. how does it happen that He is called "not one”? Because He is 'principle of all things" therefore of the one Himself. From this we are obliged henceforth necessarily also to put forward these statements about Him; that His “to be," “to live," “to understand," is incomprehensible, and not only that His “to be,” "to live,” “to understand," is incomprehensible, but that this “to be,” "to live," to understand," seems not to exist, because it is above every thing, That's why it is said that He is without existence, without substance, without understanding, without life, certainly, not by privation, but through transcendence. For all things which words designate are after Him. All these things have been understood and named from secondary phenomena. For after knowledge had appeared, preknowledge was both understood and named: in the same way, for preexistence and previtality: certainly, they existed but they were not yet recognized, not yet named. Therefore also unknowable is all that which is God." (Contra Arius) This is how analogy is possible, that God is both lion, and not. Both sword and not. Both is and isn’t. Both love and lovable.
Hello friends of the dialogos stream. Either life is getting less complicated or you all are on another level of intellectual practice because sometimes the topics go outside of my basic comphrehension. It's very uncomfortable. I like it. Thanks again for sharing another wonderful dialogos.
Rollins gets a lot from Todd McGowan Should really check out Todd McGowan's book emancipation after Hegel really helps see what Hagel is doing before psychoanalysis
Did Hegel mean by history first hand accounts of events written down/recorded in writing or any account of past events narrated rationally? What about poetry that when done well transcends rationality? What about propaganda in history? One side twisting the facts to overcome the other side? I struggle with the basic premise, especially with the presence of lies and that which is anti creative. Which is destructive. Evil as it’s traditionally called. Suffering suggests the presence of evil which must also be part of god if god is everything and one. If God suffers with us perhaps he is suffering from his own desire to be be more than one - to turn back and look at himself because he thinks two are better than one. Sorry to bring confusion. I find all this very difficult to grasp.
Historicity for the continentals is quite an interesting concept. Although we can’t reduce it to the record of things. In fact, Foucault in the archeology claims the west uses history as a grand narrative to what he calls turn those objects into “monuments”. For Hegel, the ontic dialectical (as for Hegel Being is identical to logic), is understanding through time as historicity. For Hegel, there is no past nor future. Only the present. But the present for Hegel, unlike the early philosophers, is universal. For Hegel, what exists in dialectic is its determination of thought. So Hegel writes “the owl of Athena only flys when the sun is set.” For Hegel, what we can knowledge is an actuation of unity and differences. However, since these are not determined by the reason, they transcend into the Oneness. Where reason has reached a determination. In this sense, the “now” is already one. Already beyond unity and multiplicity. This is why Hegel says truth only applies at the historical period. Because it is only then that the mind has determined itself, by contradiction. This is why Hegel says these two things, God comes to know himself in history, and God has absolutely knowing in one simultaneous moment. For the moment of logic knowing itself as Being logic, is the determination of the dialectic. And is ontologically what exists. What is privation to us, is transcendence in reality. For he says, knowing perfected is not doubt negated, but doubt transcended. To understand Hegel most fully, the science of logic is definitely his most mature work. Unlike the phenomenology which was written by a young Hegel and not as precise. Notice how for Hegel, history isn’t what we think. It’s a moment in absolute knowing. I am personally a Thomist, so I don’t mess with Hegel, and dialectic, and ontologies that say relations are primary. Even in the trinity, these relations are immanent in the Godhead, and are nor participated in formally.
@@mariog1490 Thank you for such a detailed response. I’m very interested in your comments! You say for the continentals history is not a record of things. At the very least it must be for those who once lived, then died. Especially those who died for others or believed that was the purpose of their death. We cannot argue with this. Why? There are bodies. Their names are on the monuments even if their bodies are missing. They are missed by those who knew and loved them. I am lost at the phrase ‘being is identical to logic’. Logic is rules based (dependent on the primary rule of the excluded middle). The essence of being is ‘in the middle’ in my opinion - outside time - no history. We are infinite and finite. This for me is an absolute truth. We are both divine and human. Infinite and temporal. Each anathema to the other yet both true and wholly interdependent on the other. Only in this sense can I understand being is equivalent to logic. Like writing on water I guess.
Watching this understanding this is 3 months ago but was struck by the explication of Whiteheads thinking around God being a mystery and participating in the mystery, and it’s implications for creativity, novelty. Nikolai Berdyaev (little read Russian existentialist) has a extremely similar philosophy heavily influenced by Jacob Bohem explicating the relationship between god, creativity, Man and freedom. I’d recommend “the Destiny of Man” as a good comprehensive introduction to Berdyaev I’d be interested to see a cross comparison!
Berdyaev talks about God being dynamic, ever changing ever moving, and experiencing tragedy (in Jesus) and being a fellow sufferer (as John mentioned in this video). Really fascinating stuff
Only in the north America's could there be three people in a room with humanities degrees of which two identify as practising Christians That part of the world needs to start going in the European direction of increasing secularisation before it goes completely crazy
The first temple kadokite is the God incarnation orgin as dead sea scrolls now prove in the qumran essences argument they are strong 200 years before Jesus much less Paul. Its very Jewish formulated
You guys have established that everything is related, yet fail to realize that relations are value neutral. Values are being inappropriately imposed on the concept of relationship in the conversations without rigorously defending this view. This leads to confusion since most people are probably misunderstanding what you actually are saying.
@@andrew_blank When they are using a word like relation (connection, sociality, love, etc...) it is meant in the most abstract sense. They are not just talking about the social level. A relation in this conversation is just any connection we believe things share. However, there are plenty of relations that are bad or neutral by this definition and it certainly doesn't account for ideas like love. This is because relations are nominal, they are always subject to change and continuous explanation. A connection could be good, bad, or have no moral importance to us at all. The speakers take this idea and then connect it to other words that don't apply to it. For instance love. Love is something important to humans, but it's implied that every connection is that out of love. Could we really say ions attract because they love each other? No, because ions have no feelings or understanding, like most things this idea is applied to. Keep in mind any social constructions we make are also nothing more than connections and relationships but we wouldn't say those are ontic. Anyway, not to turn this comment into a thesis these are just a few reasons why relations are not moral by definition. I'm sure people can invent examples of why I'm wrong, but ask yourself first, was the relationship Nazis had with the Jews a loving one?
Thank you Ken and David!! This was so filled with the spirit of logos!!
:D :D :D :D :D and you are too!!! :D
Very happy I found this channel. Some very fine folk to hear speak, thanks all.
Now this is what I'm taking about
what else do you talk about
49:40 - Schindler continuously amazes me with his ability to balance on the razors edge of the rational and the mysterious. I hope to emulate that quality.
go for it!
I mean unsparingly as TLCs resident Sophiology and Anthroposophy guy I have a lot to say about where you landed at the end. I think this connection between Sophia and Geist is a great framing for a conversation between JDW, Dr. Schindler and myself. I was thinking something along the lines of is Maximus the better version of Hegel, but this I think is better.
Yes please!! I knew you would have a lot to say here
Thank you for another enlightening dialogos ! At the end David expressed how happy and light he feels during and after these conversations. I experience the same feelings watching and listening, smiling and nodding along and stretching to apprehend. Also at the end the discussion turned to the meaning of history, which immediately brought to mind Teilhard de Chardin, whose thought and writings have inspired me for many years. The God of Evolution, the Geist.
geist! what a word that does not need to represent me directly now i can explore freely! chardin? :D
54:15 - God as the absolute sufferer, and absolutely transcendant to the suffering. A bridge for you and me.
yeah! it's called a secure base btw
I really have been loving and enjoying these conversations, thank you all! I’m thinking about this idea of mystery and how in Hegel ultimately there is no place for mystery, everything is to be excavated by reason. But mystery understood as excess of intelligibility can be understood as a requirement for knowledge.
I’m thinking of Karl Rahner here. He seems like the most anti-Hegelian thinker in one sense, that is because God as ground of all reality is understood as Absolute Mystery, and will always remain so. In his transcendental philosophy we have a pre-apprehension of this mystery which is the ground for recognizing any particular object of knowledge, as it is the backdrop or horizon against which we can recognize any finite being. So reason will not conquer all like in Hegel but is actually related to Mystery in a deep way. As he says in Foundations of Christian Faith : “All clear understanding is grounded in the darkness of God” (pp.19-20)
This goes into new places. David's insights about Hegel and Aristotle are excellent. I was recommended the Nicomachean Ethics and right out of the gate, he attacks and rejects the idea of transcendent good. Very materialistic ultimately. He does have plenty of value, but also some issues.
The unpacking of what we mean by understanding was very, very helpful. Thank you all for this amazing discussion! 🙏
yay thinkers go!
Great talk - thank you all
1:08:31 Ken - SO grateful you mentioned this book by Pramuk! I've been reading (and re-reading) for a few days now after ordering on AMAZON...
An *amazing* book... I had NO idea of the convergence of Zen and Russian Sophiology in Merton (while I have read him off and on for years) -
The things expressed in this book are (to me) breath taking (so far)...
(I highly recommend the interview on RESISTANCE RECOVERY channel with Pramuk if you haven't seen it!)
Watching your latest dialogos with these two wonderful interlocutors (and Pageau included as well in the newest discussion)
Thanks for what you do ❤
Pageau!
Ken, I so appreciate the way that you hold space for these two men, two of my favorite thinkers, in such a way that I can approach their work and absorb it. I think your presence and engagement with them somehow affords me the ability to understand and relate to what they are saying, even though I have so little studied knowledge on all the ideas they expound. So much reading to catch up on. Thank you for this, this series is truly a gift! Thank you so much John and Dr Schindler, please keep it up!
Brilliantly illuminating! Thank you!
very good thank you
1:08:58 The only true language and true knowledge, I would propose, is "my own language".
Which is why good education says, "what does that mean *in your own words*?".
Repeating, even exceptionally well, other people's language (which is also inevitable and necessary) is ultimately lacking in the fullness of "knowing as you ought to know". imo
I think I can retire, because John has picked up the thing I am always talking about. I don't think you can find even a single Grail Country episode where I am not talking about this.
49:35 I’d really love someone to get into why analogy is key here and key in general? The idea that we have some understanding (based in our experience) of a concept (such as creativity) and then we extend that to God. I love it because it makes God relatable and sensible (as opposed to a meaningless all-explanatory principle). But is that the only reason analogy is the rule - that it helps me make sense of God to myself? Is it grounded in anything deeper than that?
Its grounded insofar as God is cause of all things. So what is and is not, is virtually in him. What is motion for us, is perfection in Him. St Maximus writes, “understand motion is something that happens to us, not in the Godhead”. So when we say “God has moved the heart”, understand the analogy. That God did not move so the heart may move. Rather contemplate how God is both love and lovable? By descending into the creature, or to speak more truthfully, raising us to His impenetrable light, and piercing us with the divine rays. So God is love as his motion terminating in the creation, to empower it back to him. But remains in Himself what pleases this motion. Till finally on that day, there will be no motion; no seas and ocean.
Here is this quote from Victorinus:
“There are in all things an appropriate "to be,” “to live,” “to understand," to feel," so that these are the shadow or the image of three highest of all. Therefore God, although He is, as is affirmed by all, the one and the only one, some, however, have said that God is the one that is all, and not the one. For He is “principle of all things.” Therefore, “not all but all in a transcendent mode". But this is the reason for this first, indeed, that God is one and alone. Because these three do not result from composition, but since being each one what they are, they are also, by that fact, the two others, we believe. So that they are necessarily one and only one, with no kind of otherness of this we have often spoken. Indeed, as for what was said "one that is all and not one, for the principle of all,” does not this expression evidently and clearly designate God the Father of “all things and their principle," who "since He is not one” is rather, “all things.” Because He is cause and "principle” of all things and He is in all things. But since we have said that God is a certain act which is “to live,” but the “to live" above all “to live.” To live" from eternity to eternity. A notion simultaneously comprising “to be” and "to understand"-and this simultaneously must be taken in such a way that there is not a shadow of composition…Indeed, although He is the "to be” of all things, the "to live” of all things, the "to understand" of all things, and He is that while being one. and one without the least appearance of otherness. how does it happen that He is called "not one”? Because He is 'principle of all things" therefore of the one Himself. From this we are obliged henceforth necessarily also to put forward these statements about Him; that His “to be," “to live," “to understand," is incomprehensible, and not only that His “to be,” "to live,” “to understand," is incomprehensible, but that this “to be,” "to live," to understand," seems not to exist, because it is above every thing, That's why it is said that He is without existence, without substance, without understanding, without life, certainly, not by privation, but through transcendence. For all things which words designate are after Him. All these things have been understood and named from secondary phenomena. For after knowledge had appeared, preknowledge was both understood and named: in the same way, for preexistence and previtality: certainly, they existed but they were not yet recognized, not yet named. Therefore also unknowable is all that which is God." (Contra Arius)
This is how analogy is possible, that God is both lion, and not. Both sword and not. Both is and isn’t. Both love and lovable.
Hello friends of the dialogos stream. Either life is getting less complicated or you all are on another level of intellectual practice because sometimes the topics go outside of my basic comphrehension. It's very uncomfortable. I like it. Thanks again for sharing another wonderful dialogos.
3:39 a lnk to this article would have been nice 👍
Adrian Pabst's book Metaphysics and the Creation of Hierarchy is worth noting as well (me push RO thinkers again).
at the end y'all are agreeing to turn the ship toward Grail Country, lol
Isn’t Desmond …Eros to Agape …it would be good to hear him. I found his work quite difficult to read.
46:00 or as Peter Rollins would say: Unknowing is ontic. Going all the way down into God himself.
47:45 I think you’re saying the same thing, Ken.
Rollins gets a lot from Todd McGowan Should really check out Todd McGowan's book emancipation after Hegel really helps see what Hagel is doing before psychoanalysis
@@Parsons4Geist okey-dokey. Will do. Thanks!
I’ve heard Rollins talk about him, but I’ve never poked around.
😁
Did Hegel mean by history first hand accounts of events written down/recorded in writing or any account of past events narrated rationally? What about poetry that when done well transcends rationality? What about propaganda in history? One side twisting the facts to overcome the other side? I struggle with the basic premise, especially with the presence of lies and that which is anti creative. Which is destructive. Evil as it’s traditionally called. Suffering suggests the presence of evil which must also be part of god if god is everything and one. If God suffers with us perhaps he is suffering from his own desire to be be more than one - to turn back and look at himself because he thinks two are better than one. Sorry to bring confusion. I find all this very difficult to grasp.
Wonderful thoughts, too much to respond to in a comment. Personal recommendation would be to sit with the questions and explore them!
@@climbingmt.sophia Thank you. Good advice.
Excellent critique. I agree that Hegel's acceptance of the "historical record" as objective fact is ridiculous and naive.
Historicity for the continentals is quite an interesting concept. Although we can’t reduce it to the record of things. In fact, Foucault in the archeology claims the west uses history as a grand narrative to what he calls turn those objects into “monuments”. For Hegel, the ontic dialectical (as for Hegel Being is identical to logic), is understanding through time as historicity. For Hegel, there is no past nor future. Only the present. But the present for Hegel, unlike the early philosophers, is universal. For Hegel, what exists in dialectic is its determination of thought. So Hegel writes “the owl of Athena only flys when the sun is set.” For Hegel, what we can knowledge is an actuation of unity and differences. However, since these are not determined by the reason, they transcend into the Oneness. Where reason has reached a determination. In this sense, the “now” is already one. Already beyond unity and multiplicity. This is why Hegel says truth only applies at the historical period. Because it is only then that the mind has determined itself, by contradiction. This is why Hegel says these two things, God comes to know himself in history, and God has absolutely knowing in one simultaneous moment. For the moment of logic knowing itself as Being logic, is the determination of the dialectic. And is ontologically what exists.
What is privation to us, is transcendence in reality. For he says, knowing perfected is not doubt negated, but doubt transcended. To understand Hegel most fully, the science of logic is definitely his most mature work. Unlike the phenomenology which was written by a young Hegel and not as precise. Notice how for Hegel, history isn’t what we think. It’s a moment in absolute knowing.
I am personally a Thomist, so I don’t mess with Hegel, and dialectic, and ontologies that say relations are primary. Even in the trinity, these relations are immanent in the Godhead, and are nor participated in formally.
@@mariog1490 Thank you for such a detailed response. I’m very interested in your comments! You say for the continentals history is not a record of things. At the very least it must be for those who once lived, then died. Especially those who died for others or believed that was the purpose of their death. We cannot argue with this. Why? There are bodies. Their names are on the monuments even if their bodies are missing. They are missed by those who knew and loved them.
I am lost at the phrase ‘being is identical to logic’. Logic is rules based (dependent on the primary rule of the excluded middle). The essence of being is ‘in the middle’ in my opinion - outside time - no history. We are infinite and finite. This for me is an absolute truth. We are both divine and human. Infinite and temporal. Each anathema to the other yet both true and wholly interdependent on the other. Only in this sense can I understand being is equivalent to logic. Like writing on water I guess.
Watching this understanding this is 3 months ago but was struck by the explication of Whiteheads thinking around God being a mystery and participating in the mystery, and it’s implications for creativity, novelty.
Nikolai Berdyaev (little read Russian existentialist) has a extremely similar philosophy heavily influenced by Jacob Bohem explicating the relationship between god, creativity, Man and freedom. I’d recommend “the Destiny of Man” as a good comprehensive introduction to Berdyaev
I’d be interested to see a cross comparison!
Berdyaev talks about God being dynamic, ever changing ever moving, and experiencing tragedy (in Jesus) and being a fellow sufferer (as John mentioned in this video).
Really fascinating stuff
49:20 God as fellow-sufferer with us.
Obviously! Jesus Christ! ❤
Skip Robert Brandon go to Todd McGowan but watch out for in Hegel in a whole new light
Mary is wisdom in Catholic tradition.
Christ is the wisdom of God.
You may find Bulgakov helpful here
Even the Islamic Tablet and Pen in relation to Allah is a move in this direction.
10:04 bookmark
Only in the north America's could there be three people in a room with humanities degrees of which two identify as practising Christians
That part of the world needs to start going in the European direction of increasing secularisation before it goes completely crazy
@@toi_techno hahahahahahaha
Henosis by kenosis. 🙋🏼♂️
Father-Truth-King-Aragorn;
Son-Good-Priest-Frodo;
Spirit-Beauty-Prophet-Gandalf
Hegel to Spinoza hold my beer
substance is subject
The first temple kadokite is the God incarnation orgin as dead sea scrolls now prove in the qumran essences argument they are strong 200 years before Jesus much less Paul. Its very Jewish formulated
You guys have established that everything is related, yet fail to realize that relations are value neutral. Values are being inappropriately imposed on the concept of relationship in the conversations without rigorously defending this view. This leads to confusion since most people are probably misunderstanding what you actually are saying.
Could you explain what you mean by relations being value neutral?
@@andrew_blank When they are using a word like relation (connection, sociality, love, etc...) it is meant in the most abstract sense. They are not just talking about the social level. A relation in this conversation is just any connection we believe things share. However, there are plenty of relations that are bad or neutral by this definition and it certainly doesn't account for ideas like love. This is because relations are nominal, they are always subject to change and continuous explanation. A connection could be good, bad, or have no moral importance to us at all. The speakers take this idea and then connect it to other words that don't apply to it. For instance love. Love is something important to humans, but it's implied that every connection is that out of love. Could we really say ions attract because they love each other? No, because ions have no feelings or understanding, like most things this idea is applied to. Keep in mind any social constructions we make are also nothing more than connections and relationships but we wouldn't say those are ontic. Anyway, not to turn this comment into a thesis these are just a few reasons why relations are not moral by definition. I'm sure people can invent examples of why I'm wrong, but ask yourself first, was the relationship Nazis had with the Jews a loving one?
Not necessarily Whitehead, more Open Theism, which embraces the Trinity