Ep 13 | Transcendent Naturalism w/ Gregg Henriques, John Vervaeke, Matthew Segall

[@williamjmccartan8879]

Thank you John, Matt, and Gregg for sharing your time and work, this has been a rewarding journey to follow along, peace

[@ReflectiveJourney]

In my humble opinion you guys have earned the right to not give disclaimers about not going into "woo" since all of this is prefectly coherent imo and just using a new vocabulary to bridge discourses.

[@deepblack67]

We really need to find a way of talking about peoples 'internal' experiences, as well as phenomenal experiences, that scientists don't like or can't explain, as 'woo' or 'super-natural'. These are judgements placed on a subject that halts fair examination. Some things are crazy and not real, but the experience is real, and understanding comes through dialogue not ridicule. Great show as always.

[@waynelewis425]

Thank you John, Greg , and Matt for a great dialogos

[@willgiorno1740]

Thankyou😊

[@ideacastilluminate]

This was great looking forward to the next instalment!

[@nicholaslatina4464]

These conversations keep bringing to mind Donald Hoffman, do you and John plan to invite him in a future installment of transcendent naturalism?

[@waynelewis425]

The imaginal can if we attend to it and participate in it allows us to transcend to a place where we can see much more of reality than we could before…..

[@waynelewis425]

I wonder…how might the imaginal augment Mike Levin’s TAME framework?

[@rolandwheeler5828]

This is materialism in spiritual drag.

[@jeffbarney3584]

Well done. Gregg, this conversation puts me in mind of our conversation. I am thinking particularly around the one world concept. Matt beautifully articulates his intimate relationship with this reality not only through the potentia body schema but in the microcosmic formative iterations in the senses. Imagination as a self consciously wrought cognitive perceptual capacity speaks to something inherent to existence that is similar to the calling forth of the eye. Dennis Klocek who has done much good phenomenological work via embryogenesis suggests that organ forming forces follow a kind of lawful arch from actualization to intentionality to a metamorphic conformity with the ongoing fluidic environs and become inherent as the functioning of the organ. This indicative approach seems to reveal something more than conventional evolutionary theory or reductionist causality of brain function or mere speculation about a continuity of intelligence in being and becoming. It is only one small step into our whole epistemic function being an expression or gesture of intelligence as an ontological continuity. I believe this is what Aristotle was on about with his conformity theory as a direct metamorphosis out of Plato's forms. I will love to see where this goes next as relates to John's vitally important distinctions re: that potentia has an ontological geometry and that spirits play a key role in the transcendence beyond cultural and time and space confines. And finally Matt brings a full circle portal from his intro remarks when he makes an important distinction that Zak was also trying to make in the metapsychology series. Matt's clarity in resistance to the label naturalist with equal resistance to the label spiritualist is a great segue for part 2. Also in this light Steiner is much less vexing.

[@dianagoddard6456]

As one who practised as a liberal Catholic, plus experience with some Zen vis ThichnNath Hanh ,plus Vedanta plus enjoying evangelical worship songs everyone is still amazingly tribal recTRUTH so there is not just little tolerance or understanding but incredulity even between Christians. So for non dual types it is an uphill struggle especially when based on mystical experience which is not open to all ..I findc it difficult at present to see how meanjngful ritual is going to evolve. My favourite exponent of how to move from the devotional theist to that which transcends is Swami Sarvapriananda.

[@IblameBlame]

Is there a more introductory video to transcendent naturalism?

[@willgiorno1740]

Perhaps the first couple of videos in this series might help

[@dianagoddard6456]

How about Jung’s a transformation of the Mass for a meaningful exposition of the Eucharist

[@waynelewis425]

So isn’t the imaginary ultimately derived from knowing as conformity and a contact epistemology?