God and Relevance Realization | with John Vervaeke

I've been really looking forward to this conversation I sort of think of you my conversation with you as launching me into all of this in some way so it's your fault so and you know if you've probably noticed in a lot of my videos I make reference to you and make references to criticism and comments that you make and and we respond to them along the way so I feel kind of like you've been at least virtually accompanying me along the way and that and that's that's been very good for me and the project it's been really intense really busy luckily I've on sabbatical until January so I've been able to I'm gonna have to you know cut back on sort of virtual presence come January at least a bit ah but I did get some very good news my tenure has come through so that's great congratulations yeah thank you so I'm gonna officially get my tenure so there's there's been a lot like that how about you and you know you are you through the grueling thing of returning to your home and so it sounded horrible every time yeah you know it's he often you were putting sort of a brave face on like oh this is horrible no we're not we're not back we're gonna be we're probably gonna be back in our house in the summer like spring summer just because there are too many things to to do on the house and we just ran out of time in terms of winter and finding a contractor that also that has been crazy because there's 2,000 houses that need to be repaired and so just even finding a contractor you know but it's okay we're we're I'm fine I I feel like I'm back into somewhat of a groove I'm getting carvings out and I'm I'm uh you know my videos are going out so you know I feel oh yeah yeah you're doing really good work too by the way it's really good work Thanks Thanks like I said I often cite you in the series and podcasts and interviews yeah I've I've been thinking a lot about I feel like a lot of the the language that you're bringing or the the connection that you're bringing in terms of you know the in terms of content this and then trying to connect that to religious language and using specific words I feel has been really useful for me I find myself using words that you're using or expressions that you're using because it seems like they're the right they have the right they talk about things in a way that people can understand because a lot of the problems with religious language is that a lot of the words have been ruined they just be completely ruined it's okay well don't understand what they're what they're referring to and it feels like a lot of the words you're using are helping to to find another way to talk about things so that people know what's going on with like what are you talking about thank you for saying that because that was a you know that was an explicit goal for me i phrase it from the very beginning about you know a conceptual vocabulary and a theoretical grammar and that's what I would most want to do obviously I'm gonna argue for positions because that's the nature of what I'm doing but that's that genuinely is secondary to me providing you know some deep tools by which people can reflect and think and potentially engage in our transformative processes and it's it's been it's being very gratifying that I've received the same feedback from different religious communities to who I've received similar feedback from Buddhists I gave a talk it's on my channel I was talking with Hamza Soros he was a Islamic intellectual philosopher and I had a similar response from from the Muslim community so I think I mean I genuinely think that's great and so I'm hopeful that the series that I'm working on now because I'm putting a lot of work into it both theoretically and sort of research and Pyrrhic all you know sort of participatory observation I'm hoping that that that will also be the case for the next series so thank you for saying that that's very important to me yeah yeah the concept of relevance realization I feel you know when just saying it is it can help people understand what is this about you know yes and and so so I've been using that term a lot and this idea of optimal grip and just the idea of finding the balance between two opposites that the way that you are able to create analogies in different spheres about you know the the problem of the problem for example of thinking that efficiency is gonna is if you just get more efficient that it's gonna work it's like no it's not gonna work because then you're lacking you're gonna miss the other aspect which is to give yourself flexibility in order to yeah to technically and and so I think that that type of discussion is so useful and can help people understand why a lot of utopia's are just not possible they're actually not possible because you always have to leave your leaving buffers and leaving you know when people talk about let's a kind of eugenics or some type of eugenics you can see that that it even rationally can't it just reasonably cannot work because you don't understand some of these marginal characteristics that you think are useless right now you just don't understand why they can be yeah I think I think nursing around in our genetics is yeah I agree with that argument completely as you as you well I do I just I think it's I I think the frame problem all the all the unknown side effects and the fact that because the way genetics operate they're gonna be dynamically sort of self-organizing in ways we can't foresee so yeah I I'm deeply suspicious of that I mean I'm deeply suspicious of all utopias I make that very clear in this series a lot I mean Alexander bard has criticized me for that long length you know that you you can't leave the people without a vision kind of thing but yeah I'm very I'm very wary of utopias precisely because of that kind of concern they seem to be it's hard to see them as anything other than hubristic right there it's hard to see them as anything other than that for the reasons you just articulated yeah I think that one of the things I mean so this is as I kind of discovered your series at first when we had our discussion you know it was it was great it was we were kind of discovering each other and then watching your series on the one hand I was like this is awesome this is awesome and then other things I was like of course and part of what I would like to do I mean I've tried to show that I I take responsibility in the meaning of the word of making myself available respond to people and to respond to people in good faith and respect and even with affection I keep that's is what I want to do and I keep showing that I this is not just empty words I think it's fair to me to say I keep exemplifying that that is important to me and I want to give I want to want to give you an opportunity to do that if you wish to take this time to do that I know I trust you I you know the same way I trust Paul but Paul and I will disagree but like I say I often try I trust Paul and I trust you often more than I trust people that I might share the same metaphysical presuppositions with because I get I am convinced that you know because you know we've spoken at length at least a couple times I've seen you a lot I watched you a lot I see you in interactions with Paul same thing with Paul right and also now I'm entering you know conversations with you know people that are deeply influenced by you like JP and so and also I'm entering into conversations with Mary well what I want I'm try to say there's I trust people who are like like yourself and Paul precisely because I I get I have a conviction that you're coming to this in good faith and I'm much more interested in that like the last the video that you commented on but and I commented on that too I thought the video that JP had Mary made in response to I thought that it was excellent and I perhaps like to talk about the one of the points they made at the end because I've been thinking a lot about it because I thought it was a very very good point and they did they didn't quite craft it into what I would consider a coherent argument so I'd like to steal minute a bit try and build it up into a stronger argument and then discuss it with you at some point because I found that I found that really really interesting the three of us are gonna all talk soon by the way mm-hmm but you that's what you specifically put up I wanted to put my hand up no no it was with Jordan Hall - you did that was a journal later in hall conversation the whole time I was like yeah it was mariya and JP that you put the thing up about infinite relevance realization yeah it was and I wanted to talk to you about that too so there was two things yeah okay so we can start to anything maybe we can start to talk and talk about God because I guess that's [Laughter] keeps coming back up and and so and so and so I mean I I've been kind of following what you were saying in terms of non-theism and I understand I mean I understand Buddhism and Daoism in terms of non theistic religions my I guess my big question is where do you put mind in your system like where at what level of reality does it enter into because if you even if you look at these non theistic religions in practice when they're actually practice they're always ends up being a hierarchy of minds that appears in in the practice of it and so even though you can say something like I mean even Hinduism ultimately if you look at kind of Advaita Vedanta Hinduism like it all moves towards non-being but then there's a hierarchy of beings that appear right away right after let's say the statement of non-being and then you have either of you know how your body satva or a hierarchy of gods or whatever you so my question is how do you like where does it come into your system and the the second question is if like Christians let's say monotheists want to put it up as high as possible but they want to put it up as high as possible and sure and you have the idea like if you look at pronouncements about the divine nature it's always it always looks like something that is non-theistic like if you look at the the pronunciations of the mystics on divine nature it always looks at and I cite them I psyched up I give credit right I give credit to saying like some of these ideas like the term epic cases and others I say I attributed it to the Christian mystics I I don't try and steal those ideas I make clear I make it very clear that you know those ideas are present there but so so I guess my point is that even even if you let's say in in in Trinitarian theology you say something like the divine nature cannot be spoken of the divine nature is is non being you have st. Maximus who talks about the God as being being and non-being together something like that you know like this this ultimate aporia oh yeah but then as soon as there's let's say as soon as there's manifestation as soon as there's manifestation as soon as there's you know persons let's say anything specific anything that you can say anything that you can say even negatively like that then there's mind appears right and so that that to me is so I guess like I'm trying to understand like how you so if you want to not have let's say God like where does it appear in your system and then also if you don't want to put it somewhere like in the system like then you have to me you have the problem of Maya you have the problem of everything's an illusion this this the you know the notion that the manifestation is is always inadequate like as always is always you know verging on nothing you could say sure sure nothing in the pejorative sense not know nothing in the pejorative sense yet yeah yeah okay so that's a really complex question so I might need to talk for a bit I mean the answer is seven it's not going to be like that right so first of all I want to acknowledge that and I mean and I can strengthen your argument by pointing to the fact that once you get sort of beyond platanus Neoplatonism goes that way too you see uh you see a hierarchy of godlike beings for example in proquest so is that a general tendency I sure so I want to acknowledge that I'm a little bit hesitant to say that you know everything does it Zen Buddhism I think is really straight on on on Thea's own sort of all the way up but we can talk about that maybe another time let's take it that at least there's a preponderance phenomena that supports your claim I think that's that's that's fair I don't want to I don't want to offend any Zen Buddhists who might be watching if they know we just don't do we don't make any images and have any persons so things like that um so let's turn it over then I mean there's two questions that we we we have to distinguish and and they interact but they shouldn't be identified one might be and I tried to talk about this I tried to make a distinction between metaphysical necessity and psychological indispensability and I hope you accept that I do not treat psychological indispensability as a dismissive thing it's not it's not like a new atheist kind of oh you know and you're just dismiss it aside right it's it's much more that I take it that there are certain ways of framing our reality there might be indispensable for people's relevance realization to create the meaning that they need for their lives okay so that I mean that's not the same thing as just saying oh you know people have these illusions or stuff like that it's not it's not intended like that so might it be the case because the reason why I'm saying this is Paul has specifically made this argument in my presence and asked me to comment on you know that it might be that in Paul yeah so I mean part of it is I wanted to be very charitable to Paul out of good hospitality he invited me on and so I was trying to be very well I wanted to be anyways because I liked a lot but I was trying to be very responsive but there was it was a I couldn't quite understood it cleared I we sort of run out towards the end cuz the argument had culminated if he was making one kind of argument or another because the argument he seemed to be making is we need to get into the spirit of finesse in order to enter into a proper relationship with God it's a pesky lien argument and that the best way we can get into the spirit of finesse is by taking a personal lista Corian tation and then that's how we ultimately relate to God and I and I sort of I did I didn't have any deep criticisms of that but I'm afraid that I might have I might have been unfair to him in that because I just sort of translated that into my my mind into this notion of well you know yes that might be indispensable for people they might they might that might be the only way many people can trigger the correct you know full being finesse to get into the proper relationship with ultimate reality or whatever we were what neutral term we want to use until we talk more deeply about God and and let me give me just so your your viewers are clear or the analogy I use well the example I use about distinguishing indispensability from necessity I'm not bilingual by any means I'm not like you so English is is psychologically indispensable to me I mean I can't do this I can't do the work I can't write without it I just can't do most of my complex meaning making projects right but that doesn't mean that I should conclude that it's metaphysically necessary in that all cognitive agents have to think or speak English that's that's a ridiculous claim so it's very if there is no contradiction between saying something is psychologically indispensible again not under dismissive sense it's really matters to me English really matters to me right and it's really it really contributes to my functionality from concluding that it's metaphysically necessary so I sort of translated in Paul's argument in my mind - oh yes you want to get into the spirit of finesse that's the proper orientation and you take on a personal istic framing and that gives you access and I thought that's an argument for a sort of psychological indispensability I immediately also thought there are also ways in which people do this in personally I mean that wisdom is a religion of finesse that does you know interactional psychosomatic stuff that gets you deeply into a flow state of finesse state um and it doesn't in in fact when you're in you're in Tai Chi you're not in any kind of personal istic mode so again it strikes me that I could I'm just trying to be very respectful there I can deeply understand what a Christian says you know this is seems right indispensable to me I I just don't go the next step and say I think it's metaphysically necessary so one one thing we might think is it's clearly not metaphysically necessary and it would be my argument because as you said there are you know they're there they're the exemplary figures that don't seem to need personalistic language to describe the ultimate with all within all of these traditions you know Platonists in the Neoplatonic tradition at least some at least some of the the mystical writings i've read with the within within christianity you know Eckhart famously said you know God save me from God and things like that and so I don't know if it is so this is what it comes down to I don't want to deny and I don't know if you would like Mike I'm gonna use this word I won't want because I think it lines up with you but maybe not I mean I think personalism is at least John Hicks would like it this is a deeply symbolic way right it's in that it's psychologically indispensable for people and it might be indispensable in it beyond the personal like an individual indispensability there might be sort of cultural historical reasons why certain for certain groups of people something could become indispensable to think and relate to God through like the symbolism of personality I don't know if for reasons I've tried to articulate if that license is any claim towards it being emitted being a metaphysically necessary and therefore an inherent feature of ultimate reality per se now I guess the question then becomes if and this is part of the the argument I wanted to make like if we if we go that way then we're into you know there's some sort of analogous relationship to personhood and godhood if you'll allow me that term I don't mean any disrespect by it usually I hope you understand that I mean effort uses it's sort of presumably it's right and then here's the problem I have I mean I'm just I I I'm deeply I made this argument in a series so you perhaps are familiar with them I'm just deeply impressed with Goodman's argument about similarity there's no logical algorithm for similarity there's no rule for deciding similarity because similarly everything is infinitely similar in dissimilar and I mean I mean and isn't that technically the case isn't it is equally legitimate to say that God is totally not like a person as much as he's totally like a person and so Goodman's argument seems to have purchased here so I regard the issue I regard the argument about whether or not even its synthesis you know symbolically true if that means something beyond psychological indispensability I regard that as as for the reasons I just tried to articulate I regarded that is just undecidable I don't I don't I don't there's no way of coming to a conclusion that you know it's ultimately this is the best kind of a similarity that the personal similarity I just don't I just don't see that if best means something beyond it's often psychologically indispensable to people so that's that's that's what I sort of stand now well I look I haven't answered your second question I did say there was two but I'll let you respond to the first thing I am keeping a mental thing that you want to want me to place in the ontology where it is it did you guess where yeah where it is but I wanted to say first I wanted to separate that first question from the ontological question because they're often they're often spoken together and I think it's often confusing to speak them to address them together so I want to pull them apart I want to give you a chance now to respond to that first question right well I think I mean the way that I that I would approach what you said is it brings back the problem of Maya the problem of illusion because let's say our experience of person or the experience of a relational experience of a being that is like you said at like like me this is different from me and that communion that you experience that has to come from somewhere right it has to come from somewhere ontological II it has to come from somewhere metaphysically but if it if we can't we can't place it then it is illusion then then it is then it has to be a kind of a kind of or a kind of a kind of Maya kind of yeah and and so to me that is that is one of the reasons why like you said for sure I think that Eastern Christians they don't they they don't see God when we say everything everything we say about God is an analogy it is never speaking directly about God so when I say God is his person I don't mean it in the same way as I am a person but what I mean is you could say that he is the source of person he's the source of these things oh good yes exactly but he is not he's not a person in the same way I'm a person every you know everything we say about God is always is always how can I say this is always missing the mark and I think that that's really important in terms of theology is that there is no every word we use about God is not how can I say this if we say God is love there's a there's a hierarchy which mean the way that we say God is love is is like the source of all manifestations of love it's never mmm equal to my experience of love or whatever so it always kind of moves towards this infinite and so that to me that that so I guess I then you know you'll have to answer the second question because I'm bringing it back to the second question which is okay where does it come from like yeah okay so but there's yeah sorry I'm gonna be a bit of a philosopher here I want to go step by step that's okay because I think III I mean I want to be fair to both you and to me and so I'm gonna try and so I like the move you made and that and and and that's how I've sort of tried to think about it to be fair to me I tried to think about what people are saying is they're saying like God is the source of personhood but God of course also the source of ocean hood he's also this the source of tree hood he's right I mean that's the sort of the Neoplatonic idea right and again and you know sort of they didn't die Anissa sort of does this he says you know you could you could even say you know God's a stone and that the Bible it II quotes verses when God's compared to a rock and he says you know and so I I guess what I'm trying to get at is why does I there might be an implicit claim here so I'm asking you I'm not forcing it on you right that right when I'm communing with again godhood ultimate reality whatever the wheel they're really real as people often describe it phenomenologically so at least that's a somewhat neutral term because if he except on a law that seems to be a converging thing I don't think the the ground of my personhood is a purse like within me I I mean this is gamma saw like a Jungian idea I'm not I'm not saying that it's I'm trying to point to other people who have talked in a similar manner or Tillich talks about you know the group the grounder of my being right the existential and I don't think that's a person and to be fair to me I tried to articulate that I tried to articulate how the notion the personhood is grounded in something like you know the processes of relevance realization and that there that our relationship to that is you know something that's a source and so what I was indicating is I think a lot of times what people are doing when they're trying to communicate if you'll allow me these metaphors and I know they're problematic when I'm trying to communicate with external you know the external ground the best symbol for me isn't actually the personal level it's the level of my ground right it's the level from which my meaning-making in my consciousness and all of those things emerge or maybe I don't know maybe that's something like people used to mean by a soul I'm not sure but I think of that as well I don't like what soul became and just sort of a Descartes yeah yeah okay so that's why runs I'm pretty good in quotation yeah and so I think in fact I think that when you look at the Mystics that seems because they make when they're making identity Clint's cuz they do make identity claims so often say I am a one with God and things like that I don't think they mean that they're communing with God at the personal level because they don't talk that way they talk about dropping into the ground of their being and that that is the only thing that allows them to commune or participate and I don't think that's in any way an illusion I don't see why that has to be an illusion I mean I I tried to articulate all kinds of language that I think makes that a viable way to talk so I don't think I'm committed to the problem of Maya by saying that I think what I see happening you know in a lot of the non-theistic claims is that people are saying no no the vast the the deepest way right the deep calling to deep as it says in the Psalms right the deepest part of me is actually there is is the grass of my personhood is not itself a person is it's something deeper more basic and I think there's aspects of that I mean that's where the deep participatory knowing comes in the way my psyche is self-organizing and and the way it's self presencing and all of that sort of thing I think that gives me much better if you'll allow me analogs although again given my own argument I can't give you a logical argument that that's the best because I think throw logically equivalent so I'm back to saying I find that clock captures a lot of more of the phenomenology and and therefore is more responsible to the psychological indispensability than the level of personal language yeah well I maybe because the person maybe it's just the problem of what a person is because we're we're hitting a rock here because you know you you read in the father's you read in the Mystics they always say you know you are not your thoughts you're not your your feelings you're not yours all of those things that actually doesn't constitute your person like you're a person in Christian language is is an instantiation of a nature like that's a person and so there's a there's a nature which is human nature and then a person is a is a person like it's a human and that's what that's what a person is and so it's it's it's the it's the actual it's the landing of a nature it's a land it's the landing of the nature in in in an actuality like so so it it has a are you to be a little bit more specific sorry for interrupting because yeah I don't I don't want I don't want to lose because I think I'm gonna be misunderstanding you I let you go on so it so the word when we say I just worry about I'm just worried about everything everything instance II it's a nature right like trees instantiate tree hood I mean that's the Platonic exactly well you would say I mean yeah that in Christian languages the opposite like it's it's it's it's the opposite of this I mean I don't have a problem with this emergent thing but yeah like like give me the language with the top down let's say yeah Jonathan it wasn't a challenge question I wanted you to I need to I need to I need to I need to see where the specificity of personhood comes in other than in the instantiation of a nature because everything instantiates its its nature exactly well everything exactly but so okay of that is hike in the notion of a hypothesis like that's yeah yeah that's the idea of a of a person in terms of Christian language you know like it it's a it's a it's an it's an actual tree it's not just it's not so that's what to me but you see so it's fair to say you see sorry you see personhood in the the the being I meant as the active presencing of a tree you see a personhood in that oh wow person in the sense of hypostasis like in the sense of in the sense of I mean not in the sense of can I say this not in the not in the common sense that we understand person in the sense of an individual or like a human individual but but but there's more to that I mean that human individual sense we extend moral rights and privileges to it I extend those to you that I wouldn't extend to a tree because I consider you a person I mean obviously it does it does also depend on on the nature of what what is being instantiated and so but so so the idea like let's say in terms of understanding personhood in terms of Christianity the way that we understand personhood is is is that in commune it's it's almost like emergence you know these sound like emerges that as a person I am in communion with other persons and that is that is what makes me exist as a person because I am in as a person as an instantiation of my nature in communion with other instantiations of the human nature I that's how we exist as humans that's what makes people that's what makes that's what makes human and so and so the instantiation so the Trinity is what makes God no III don't need not clearly understand the Trinity but I'm just trying to help to help see things a little maybe a little differently than because I feel like we always confuse a person with like an individual in the sense of my individual rights and my thoughts and my feelings oh no no this this is good I want it I want to go with this carefully so thank you that was first of all very helpful I mean because I'm very familiar with the notion of hypostasis because I'm deeply I Undine it you know it's it's a it's it seems to emerge in literature and floatiness right and and I and to be fair to me many people describe it this way they they regard the emanations of the hypostasis it's something non personal because of the way you you know some of the things you're saying we tend to attribute certain mantle and dispositional properties to persons that the the hypostasis don't have for example so there seems to be a key key thing in that what you're saying it if I'm understanding you and please interrupt me by misunderstanding it because I interrupted you okay um what you see it did me saying is there's two things the first is at least the Eastern Christian I'm pretty confident that I didn't I didn't hear this at all when in Protestants of course when I was growing up so but I I want to be careful here but I'm gonna take you as an authority of Eastern Christianity sorry for putting that hat on you but you're the only one here in the dialogues like that I do what I can do so you're saying there's a sense in which the idea of any of that any of that like emanation right I don't know what you like you said instantiation as a process as opposed to just a label any of any of that instantiation right the high post ization of your let me to turn it into a verb you regard that as kind of that's a personal that's part of the personal dimension and then there seems to be something specific in that instantiation of human nature that makes human persons if you'll forgive me as opposed to tree personhood is that am i understanding or sure in the sense that so the way that the it's a Maximus understand it is that there is a there's a hierarchy of nature's you know and and the human human nature because it has mine because it has meaning because it makes and participates in meaning it gathers like it also gathers all the other natures in himself so so the human person gathers all the nature's in himself so the image that st. Maximus talks about is that the human person is like at the top of the mountain he's in the center he's in the centre he's a young and he's in the middle and he gathers all the nature's in himself and then when he does that in love then he unites himself with God like it's actually by doing that he's actually uniting himself with God I mean I understand it so I'm not gonna make an identity claim here but this reminds me of Aristotle's notion that everything has the form but the human mind is capable of gathering all the forms into itself and then you get Platonist this idea that that allows that that gives the human mind a capacity to conform to the source of all before yeah yeah that is definitely that is definitely how Christians see it but they don't they don't they really do see it in terms of of love like and the reason why they see it in terms of love is that it prevents the problem of the the hypostasis or the actual manifestations of things being secondary or being illusions no no I get that so remember I have noted you making that point and I I take it I take it very seriously so I do want to come back to that point because this is really important in town in terms of understanding why Christianity is is as part of the thing why Christianity is also part of what made science so powerful you know we believe that the instantiations are real yes yes yes and the and the idea that the Christianity okay you've got you've triggered about four things in my mind I'm sorry no no no that's good okay so first of all I want to go back so the question now seems that maybe then if I'm happy to extend sort of personhood in that sense if you want to use that term to that notion of the process of hypo station with the idea that what is high post at eyes oh my gosh is is it is not illusory so that's fine but then the question becomes like then we did it we ended up doing it and we and you sort of agreed with my presentation back to you that I'd understood you that mine seems to be something ontological II different in that it is it is a logo so forms it can gather and gab forms belong together and that gives it an ability to conform source alright and so the question then becomes I guess for me again is the degree to which I see the logos as equivalent to my mind and and that's that's that's gonna be a little bit tricky I understand what you're doing here but maybe let's ask this ask the question this way that's look at it this way and so let's say you say that that mind is different because it's a it gathers right just able to gather and it created its sees and participates in patterns okay so in terms of of your let's say ontology does that come to the human person and then stop or does can you see mind above in higher beings well why I was hesitating I'm sorry I didn't mean to be obscure is the term mind has multiple reference I even have a talk on that right oh we when we use the word mind nowadays we we point to many different things at many different ontological levels that have different ontologies have different way of mean we people do this to be very sure that they mean brain sometimes yes they they mean information processing they mean behavior right they mean like what language communication they mean participation and culture they mean you know what's available to us in distributed cognition through call they meet all of those things and the disciplines that study them don't speak the same language don't use the same methodology don't gain to gather the same evidence so that's why I'm hesitant about just using this word mine because I find that term deeply deeply equivocal for us that's why I was trying to shift off of mine and I was trying to get at you know the grounding of of our ability to sort of make sense I'm fine with that I'm fine with making meaning making sense gathering patterns recognizing patterns you know even the idea of relevance realization let's say use that word so again if we want to use that expression that's fine but my question is does it does it go up to us and then that stop or does it continue to is there more is there that as is relevant realization at higher levels sure sure okay no that's okay so now I feel like I've got the question and thank you for giving me that that was generous on your part but I do think I do think there is a deep consonants between the ancient notion of logos and what I'm talking about in relevance realization for sure yeah okay great thank you for acknowledging that and so I think that it's I mean I and I'm demonstrating that I'm committed to this I'm committed to the idea that there is forms of relevance realization that exceed individuals and I've acknowledged this 2jp and I'm doing a lot of work right now and this is a big thing you can see it being a big topic you know in places like rebel wisdom the idea of distributed cognition possessing a collective intelligence and there's been some rather horrific experiments by the way it's sort of demonstrating this there's a scientist who literally wired rats brains together like yeah yeah it's very Orwellian it and what you can show is that system of rats yeah right can solve problems that the individual rats can solve and so we always knew this sort of intuitively but now you have sort of corn to quantify measurement evidence for this claim so it's no it's no longer just the woowoo claim right it's it note so I mean yeah if what's really frightening Jonathan just to portend what might be happening because they've done some preliminary experiments with humans with direct linkage through the neural the neural chips and so yeah that's that stuff yeah that's scary stuff so let's put let's put there Orwellian stuff aside so I think I mean I think I should be and I have been responsible scientists in acknowledging I think and the reality of collective intelligence and distributed cognition that's why I'm very interested in the Socratic project because I think the Socratic project is a project of trying to do something analogous where we do an individual cognate where we take intelligence into rationality into wisdom and the Socratic project is can I take collective intelligence bring it up into collective rationality and bring it up into collective wisdom and and I think all of that is viable that's what I'd like one of the things I'm exploring in the next series so I think all of that is the case and you should know but this is taken very seriously in cognitive science this idea of distributed cognition having something like collective intelligence and having the kind of problem solving so I think I think I can I'm happy with saying that relevance realization extends beyond us into something I don't know is this sacrilegious I don't mean it to be but like the ecclesia a gathering where people are gathering together yeah and trying to and trying to form a cooperative and you see that I mean in Scripture you have the idea of the angels of cities you have these these notions that there are you know that there are patrons and and those beings are manifest the the communion of a group they are like they're the head but I mean I think that I guess maybe now is is where I want to get back because once you express something which I was like I was like you you're on that you're on the track that I wish you were on your Aegina and you Gina obviously takes a lot of his stuff from from Dionysus and Maximus you know he translated Maximus into Len yeah I'm so actually interested in him because he he's the last great sort of synthesis in my mind of East and West Eastern Western Christianity and so you you because because I let's say I used to always III think top-down like I I'm a plate in this I'm a you know I'm a Christian lateness I think top-down and then it's all the it's on the discovering during Peterson and you and and being in contact with agnostics and atheists it's like I was I kind of forced myself to think bottom up yeah um and to to to think of communion and to think of things coming together and and these complex systems coming up and once you said you said it seems like your DNA is saying that those two like the emergence and the top down in Malaysia the emanation there they're actually happening at the same time yeah and his notion of creation I'm still I'm still committed to that I'm still committed to discussing us and I think that that's that that is so that you see the same in say Maximus he says that explicitly he talks about there are some quotes above him where he talks about how you know when when you and when the mystic sees let's say the the particulars separate from their essences you know and he can see it he also sees that they're the same like that actually you know that the the the coming together of the particulars is the same as the naming coming from above you know yeah and what's interesting that yes totally and I'm reading some Maximus or a meeting about Maximus right you know quite a bit because as you said if you want to understand you're a gene you've got and Maximus I'm not claiming to understand in the way you do understand it takes a lot to get through get to the language to well but that's usually what it is for a great philosophy and have to it's not just the words it's their it's their mindset you have to you have to habitus to it you have to learn how to and have it and and that's what's often more I often find that that's what's most valuable about a philosopher other than the particular proposition they assert so I like everything you said and because I'm trying to I'm trying to get beyond an ontology that privileges emergence and emanation and and and why this connects up to what we're talking about is you know area specifically uses dialectic but he writes the periphery on the division of nature as a dialogue and many people comment on that they sometimes call him the Hegel of the ninth century which i think is a disservice to era Gina because his notion of his notion of dialectic as I think is much more Christian platonic that it is hey Gillian but but so because he sees creation is an inherently dialectical because it is this this complete independent raishin talk to bottom yeah right and for me you know I I tried to indicate also that that's our best models of cognition are inherently you know bottom-up top-down completely interpenetrating right and so there's something deeply analogous between how the mind works and and and that kind of ontology and so I find I think I could make a case for that well yeah I think I just did we all right we already we've already countenance that ontology deeply in our practice of cognitive science an emergence up in some kind of top-down thing and then and then the idea that maybe that's the best way because the problem with each one of the two emergence has the problem like community like many people you've pointed out us but how do you get to these the this sort of normative right and there and an emanation has the problem of why doesn't it just stay yeah the one what is it what yeah why does it why does it come down exactly yeah know that if you'll allow me so first of all I'm happy with that's what I mean about an analogy at the ground of my cognition as opposed to like an identity with my mind see the top-down bottom-up aspect isn't a content of my mind is that an aspect of my will it's a constitutive structural functional I dose that makes mindedness possible yeah it is that here are you okay with me though I agree I mean in creating in the Christian mystics you all they really do separate the notion of noose from the idea of mind or sense of thinking and and you know the the the active you know process is that that noose is this direct connection it's like no it's like I mean you could describe it as the ground of your being in that sense yeah and and and and then the connectedness would be I don't know bottom-up top-down as a thought I know it by participating is right that's great yeah that's perfect there's the participatory connection is vertical and horizontal at the same time which is by the way the same thing in dialectic dialectic is happening ontological e within the individual and then horizontal between individuals so I think I can sort of I'm sort of making sense of what era Gina is doing yeah there so but if you look like if you look at then if once you let's say you see that or you understand that those two things are happening at the same time then when you look at if you let's say look at Christ's pronunciations with that with those lenses with the with that lens all of a sudden you're gonna see that he's constantly shifting between between both he's shifting between the two you know we're on the on the one hand you know when he talks about when he says things like you know where two or three are gathered in my name you know I'm also here I am that's exactly it it's like they're in love they're the logos is is is is there but then there's also the whole image of the that of the head of the you know the idea of the the head of the body and you know st. Paul has that analogy the head in the body and so that is more of a like you get the sense of a more of a top-down but then he also talks about the the the members of the body that are --court that are fitted well fitted together in love and that is the totality of the Messiah like the totality of Christ is both you know the the head and then the joining of the members in love and so you get you get that it's it's is I think it's an interesting exercise to do is to look at some of the to look at those and so then when you get for example an image of Christ who talks about the seeds you know when he he tosses the season he sow the seeds come from above and they fall and if they fall on the right ground then they grow and so you have that meeting of the heaven which comes down and meets earth and then the the earth also that say brings forth like God God God says there's no creation and then ultimately then you have the image of the creation of Adam which is the gathering of dust and the blowing in of spirit and that's it like that's the - at the same time if there's the gathering of dust and the blowing into the spirit you okay you have to bottom up like gathering and then you have the top down which is like the the naming or the you know this is wonderful I mean and first of all I'm really happy to be involved in this conversation no no Jonathan this is not empty flattery you're symbolic skills are really really really powerful as I respect them I'm liking what you're doing now I would I would say in response I mean the reason why I don't associate this with classical theism is air Aegina was persecuted as a heretic right and so this model which i think is articulated very well in Erik Gina it's not clear why he was persecuted as a heretic either I'm it's it's really obscure I mean he just sort of disappears um historically um and part of the and part of the people you know the people I'm reading and I believe everybody I'm reading a their Gino is self-identified as a Christian so if this isn't hostile Christic and there's and part of what they're pointing out is like this was all this was sort of rejected and thrown away and it's too bad that it was cuz it would have been very helpful for us right now that's sort of the tenor of what I'm reading and so that's why I mean I'm very hesitant to apply this model to classical theism because it looked like at least in the West the church said no right it sort of officially said no no we're not going that way that's not that's not how we should understand things yeah there's also there's also a there's also a reality which is that to a certain extent this is gonna sound weird for a lot of people that there isn't there's a Mis not a necessity but there is an inevitability of a certain amount of suspicion coming from an institution and that that suspicion the way that I see the I see Christianity and maybe it's so very different from a lot of people I see that there are different actors and they're they're playing out a story and so I think that when we see let's say the church give us warnings about okay we could use even let's use an Eastern I so I don't bash the Western Church are using Eastern example it's like sure they go after origin you know it's like they go after origin it's like origin is bad this is this but it's like origin doesn't go away origin is still there we have Evagrius Evagrius is is brought back into the christian literature you using different names of different saints and pseudo texts and all of this and so it's like it's like it it never goes away but there's something about the institution which in serving its role it also is has the danger of of crystallizing and of let's say of wanting to fix things which is good sometimes and sometimes can be dangerous and so it's like you always have to see all the stories at once I don't know if that makes sense that's fair that's fair I guess part of also yeah I think that's a reasonable I don't want to get us off track though I don't want to get oh no no no no and I don't want to equate criticizing Christianity with criticizing God or anything like that yeah I want to keep those apart I was just trying to tell you one reason oh yeah another one I'm sort of hesitant I see the same kind of attempt to get I think I make a really strong case for this and especially you know coming out of norges una within Buddhism of trying to get an ontology in which there's the deep interpenetration of emergence in emanation this is you know form is emptiness right and emptiness is form and Nirvana is samsara right it's the idea that right the form the emergent right the structuring and the emptiness the source are completely interpenetrating because the identity claim there is not a logical identity that's very clear from the text so it's no it's what they're trying to do with the is is they're trying to say the emergence and the emanation are completely completely interpenetrating and in its in its the realization of that in the sense not of an idea but of existential conformity that actually brings that actually brings reliefs right that brings salvation that brings the the the amelioration of dukkha and so there again like I said I I the reason why I keep using them sort of saying I want to say this as non-theism is I'm not I'm not quite convinced that sorry I don't want to call you a heretic I'm not trying to say that yeah what I'm saying is the way we're talking I think it would make a lot of people who identify with classical theism uneasy and but it's also a way of talking that would make a lot of people in Buddhism nagarjuna for example very very happy and so this is why I try to use the notion of non-theism because I'm not trying to commit to a particular frame and I'm hesitant to say that I see this way of talking very prevalent in a lot of the people that identify with classical theism so but this goes back to I mean this goes back to two points one is the degree to which I mean because you have this interesting thing that I keep referring to where you think Christianity is itself going through per centrally some kind of resurrection process um and I think that's very interesting and then the other one goes back to the point that I wanted to do with Mary and JP and that goes maybe back to the the main thread of our conversation so if you want to come back to the other thing about Christianity I'd be happy to do that but I think that they said something very interesting and and it didn't quite but because I basically see to be fair to be also when I was talking with JP I was also sort of challenging or upend psychist interpretation of sort of a supercar of sort of a supra-consciousness because I'm not I don't have evidence of consciousness I don't even have evidence of a consciousness for the ecclesia for the distributed cognition of evidence for intelligence I don't have the evidence for anything like consciousness and and and and and and I was trying to get at like there's this problem of I don't see relevance realization sort of ontological --red and this gets back to your point of infinite relevance realization so let me try let me try and they don't quite say this way I'm trying to strengthen their argument in good faith so I'm not trying to strawman it there's something like the idea that because I've acknowledged sort of the idea idea from Whitehead that possibility result you know I think possibility is real it's ontologically real the possibility has to be structured right in some way and that sort of emanation is how that plays out in how constraints are found within reality constraints are instantiated from the way possibility is really structured something like that and that's our a very neo platonic notion and you can see it clear and Whitehead but they were sort of getting married sort of brought this idea and then and JP did something interesting with it that you is that there's something analogous to relevance realization in that infinite possibility self constrains down to the finite things this is an act of self constraining that's very analogous to the self constraining that's at the heart of relevance realization and it's very much kind of analogous to love because in love you you're doing this sort of you're doing an inherently self limitate a self limiting thing that's also a self trending self-transcending thing because you know our Gina sees creation as as God's ultimate act of self transcendence like that is sort of God is sort of all of the creation still remains within God right and so there's this ultimate act of self transcendence and I thought I thought that was a really strong argument because you could say okay there's something analogous it's not the same as our finite relevant realization but this this if you'll allow me a metaphor transfer from the language of physics there's a collapse of infinity into finite things it's a self constraining and we we always find that bound up with how we care about things and and so analogy an elegance for us it feels like it feels like a kind of like what love is I'm come from being very hesitant here right and then of course we and we can enter into a communion with it that gets the mutually accelerating disclosure which of course is experienced as we we can fall in love with that so I'm sort of prepared to acknowledge all of that I'm just yeah but like I say iiiii don't so this is that this is this is a good this is a good line you know um like the way that I that I would that I see it is similar to what you say I don't like the I don't use the word possibility I just use the word infinite I just I like the word infinite because infinite can really just mean non even categorically infinite that is there it just boundless in every every manner so you can imagine that that the notion of of God has boundless so we have we believe in one God the Father right and this this this boundless completely boundless and then the Sun like the logos is exactly what you said it's that it's it's the it's the it's not limiting but it's like the expression of the boundless and through that expression that's how limited things appear but what's important like I think and that what's important Christianity this is the most important thing in Christianity is that the the expression of the infinite is equal to the infinite that's the most important thing that's the most important thing in Christianity and that's why the whole the whole fight in the fourth century was all about that is to say that the expression of the infinite has everything the infinite has which is which seems contradictory but what it does is that it makes it makes the world exist like it makes the world exist in and be real and not just be an illusion okay so the first thing is I use the word possibility because I want to use something that has the same scope but is paired properly with actuality because I'm trying to get out of kind of a metaphysics in which actuality is equated with realness so so I think the distinctions are orthogonal I see what you're saying but I could see I could say you could have an infinite actuality in some sense and it might not include possibility right infinity is a weird thing so try dating yeah so and the reason why I use the reason why I use possibility is because as I've tried to argue possibility is a real although not properly acknowledged ontological category in science itself there's one thing because you know laws and potential energy these are all real possibilities and science absolutely needs those also and constraints in biology for example but also using possibility because it overlaps with combinatorial explosion so that's that's why it's my chosen term I'm not I'm not I'm not committed to it in an idolatrous fashion in that I'm just it also lines up with how like I said how whitehead tries to articulate how God fits in his model right I thought although he ultimately says that God has to be an actuality in a way that I think gives in to Aristotle put that aside so there's that so the net that so what up what I'm trying to get at is is ah yeah I don't I don't want to get into well it's not that I want to avoid it I don't know if I can do anything of value to you or viewers talking about the Incarnation [Laughter] because because I mean like I said I see I see other places I mean the talc HN says there's the Dow and the manifestations but but they're ultimately one and that one is darkness yeah right or you know form and emptiness or one and it's a non logical identity and here's another point that I would want to make that there's something analogous again it's not part of my mind it's not part of my consciousness or my intelligence I'll use those two words okay but this is a feature in my personhood I participate in non-logical identity because I'm in some sense personally identical to the child that was one years old born in Hamilton now that child and I we don't share a lot of properties and you don't even share any atoms right right and yet there's so there's non-logical identity and I think my participation in non-logical identity gives me the analog for participating in the non logical identity between form and emptiness the DAO in the manifestation or perhaps if you'll allow me to do right God and the Sun that's that's again that's not something in my consciousness or in my intelligence it's part of the well I think that's part of again the logos of my being and I'm also willing to grant to Paul that when I disagree with Paul he calls out a machine code I think it's clear evident it's not a machine code if he's using that term the way I would because we have to prep but he says narrative is our machine code I and and I I disagree with that because the Machine like we have to teach people narrative we have to practice that way we do practice it you have to teach kids narrative that's the narrative in practice i father says you have to teach them and teach them and teach them and teach them and teach them and teach them and you if they're really watered-down narrative to something like the Teletubbies like I did this twice with my kids right and you go through this alright this is horrible right and you have to practice and practice is right and that's why they take a long time to get a sense of humor properly they to be able to tell a joke right there's all this developmental stuff and we keep practicing it with each other all the time so I'm not I'm not convinced that it's part of our machine code but I think Paul what I could agree with Paul saying is narrative is where we practice non-logical identity so narrative is where we get a temporally extended sense of self that allows us to get that non-logical identity yeah it's the thing is that narrative does for time what names or identities do for space like an that is that you in order to create in order to create pattern in time you need narrative and in order to create it's a pattern in space you need you need things that are connected together in a certain manner in an old recognizable manner so that you see that them as an identity and so narrative does that in time and yes and it's a more usual categories and naming does that in space let's geometry geometry yeah so John if you go like or just you know we're good and so to me that's what narrative is the capacity to to identify with time like to have experience early temporarily extend itself but I think what I want to say is if you'll allow me these metaphor I mean there is there's not only non logical horizontal identity through time there's non-logical ontological identity through the levels of being and I think that there that people pass I mean because that's what I'm reading and that's what I've experienced you can pass into a trans narrative state-paid perhaps it's a state that transcends both the spirit of geometry and the spirit of narrative in which you get this non logic you you hate this ability of not to to participate in non-logical identity that is not just the non illogical identity of narrative yeah I think this is this is probably where this is where I get the the biggest confusion in terms of so there's there's a there's a there's a there's a story that my brother told me he would he studied kung fu for a very long time and then story really stuck with me for a very long time he was talking to me about the different legendary swords that exist in the this kung-fu mythology and he was telling me that the the very like let's say the second highest sword in their mythology was a sword where if you put the sword in the water all the all the twigs and the branches and the leaves would come and would strike up against the sword and cut and half um and he was and that was the second most important sword and the the most highest sword the high sword was a sword that if you put it in the water the branches would come and avoid the sword and would never touch it and so to me the it's like if you say something like that you can reach a state the which transcends narrative I would say yes and then I would say but that that when it comes back down its narrative again mm-hmm like so it's not so the denial of something in in a hierarchy the denial of the particulars actually is the the is the the invisible essence of their coming together and on the lower on the lower aspects and so to me and so if like for example so that's why you know that's why I I really struggle with the arguments sometimes where someone would wit tries to kind of like step up above religion and then look at the different religions and say there are examples of different of different things and it's like yeah but if you come down you have to be on a path and that path is coherent like I don't know if that makes sense like in terms of of of the let's say that if you can reach a state let's say a mystical state where you're above where you you you would encounter something which is above narrative and is above you've an identity and is like you know this this kind of infinite moment that doesn't it doesn't destroy reality it actually it makes reality real that's exactly how people respond to experiences of entre normativity of the really real they come back and they transform their selves and they transform their life to try and bring it closer into conformity there's there's a there's a inspiration in that sense it right informs and transforms their cells there are relationships in their world yeah well I wasn't denying that I mean I think I I agree that if we use those might your language but when you're coming back down that and that's where I think you you get the the gap between sort of metaphysical necessity and psychological indispensability you fall into a particular narrative I do think the different narratives do emphasize different things I think I mean I think Christianity speaks about a and it does the best the best sort of on agape I've made that argument but you know I think there are other experiences that are deeply contributory to meaning in life and I have good empirical evidence for this I think flow is really deeply important and Krissy doesn't say much about flow that much when Taoism is the religion of flow it's got a lot to say about it's got a lot of practices and you're gonna you know if you want to if you want to become a much better flow ER Taoism is the place to go right right um and I'm speaking not just from the outside I've been a protect practitioner for like 28 years so I again I I trying to and I said to see at the very beginning on our first talk and so that not that he gives us any special authority I just trying to say that there's a consistency I'm trying to reject both relativism and perennialism and I'm trying to use the notion that I got from cognitive science a synoptic integration cognitive science doesn't try to eradicate neuroscience or computer science or psychology or linguistics anthropology it's not trying to put them out of business it's trying to create an overarching framework so that they can insightfully talk and transform each other so that we stop equivocating in powerful ways about when we try to talk about mind and meaning and that's a different thing than both perennialism and and relativism I'm trying to I'm trying to I'm trying to try to get beyond both of those mm-hmm and that's a different thing so I'm definitely not I'm not hutch say oh they're all saying the same thing and I'm not cats oh they're all talking about totally different incommensurable things I'm not trying to I'm not trying to say either one of those I'm trying to say no no it's much like what cognitive science tries to do between the various disciplines that's what I'm trying to talk about um and so people often I guess that's where I'm getting misunderstood where people are trying to say John but it's funny I think the the fact that I get both sides or indicates that I'm being misunderstood John's trying to destroy religion oh no John is actually trying to defend and they're both sides there I'm gonna suddenly pull this philosophical rabbit out of a hat and show AHA right all along I was drawing you in so that I could Jonathan I I mean I want I want to take this opportunity to say and I've said it in the comments but I want to stay here because that way it will reach more people if people can with if they can use my work and they can return to Christianity but also they can return to Buddhism or Islam and Taoism and that will enrich their ability to find meaning and cultivate wisdom and compassion great I'm happy right right I'm not I am NOT anti religious that is no no I don't think I don't think I think it would be very difficult to for people to guess to come to the conclusion that your anti religious I'm not and I'm not simply eclectic and that's okay okay I mean I think look I I see we've been going for a while and I have an appointment in 15 minutes but I would like alright so I would like so maybe we could have a conversation sooner rather than later because I do want to talk about your project like the accident project I have like you know I've been thinking a lot about some things you're saying and I've and I have a lot of questions in terms of sure and I expect you might have criticisms and I'll take them in good faith all right try to do I tried to do that here with you today well I appreciate iron I love these discussions I really appreciate it and let's do that let's try to do it because I think we last time talk was almost like a year ago maybe you're yeah quite a while ago they tried to do it sooner rather than later I would like that I would like that I listen because you're running out of time - yeah the sabbatical if we could get if we could maybe get it sometime in December that would be good all right just send me some times and we'll work something I'm very happy to talk to you always Jonathan you know that I'm looking forward to when the three of us will be all together that's gonna be so much fun that that sounds like a lot so people who are watching we're going to do something in Northern Ontario genre Vicki and Paul Vander clay and Jonathan Petro all the three of us together doing a I think it's I think it's like two days even yeah we're gonna have talks and meetings and also have a question period so I think it's gonna be I think I really looking forward to it too and I'm hoping people are going to to come with a lot of interesting thoughts as well people you even come into the audience so I think that'll be great I I agree I think I think what the urban Abbey is doing it's just just fantastic I encourage people to get there if they can because I think it's just gonna be an amazing thing I'm really looking forward to it alright John so I will I'll say goodbye for now and then we'll have another meeting sometime in December thanks again great I really appreciated this discussion Jonathan thank you very much all right okay well bye take care I hope you enjoyed this most recent discussion with John reveille key as we mentioned in the video check out my website once in a while we'll be putting up dates very soon for an event with John Paul vander clay and myself which will be in northern ontario as christmas comes to i wanted to put up a few things on my teespring account I have some obviously Santa Claus exists t-shirts that I designed with my children and what that was a lot of fun and also I made a hand drew a inked version of my logo where the six days of creation and put in the inscriptions in English so if you want to check that out there's a link below and the YouTube channel you can also check out my teespring account so thanks a lot and I will see you soon [Music]

Channel: Jonathan Pageau

Views: 26,669

Keywords: Jonathan Pageau, the symbolic world, john vervaeke, revel wisdom, relevance realization, symbolism, religious sym bolism

Id: N1byG4RqoTg

Length: 74min 8sec (4448 seconds)

Published: Mon Dec 02 2019