Ep. 39 - Awakening from the Meaning Crisis - The Religion of No Religion

New videos released every Friday.
Podcast Links:
•Anchor: anchor.fm/john-vervaeke
•Google Podcasts: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=...
•Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/43gIWKV...
•Breaker: www.breaker.audio/awakening-f...
•Pocket Casts: pca.st/EYU4
•RadioPublic: radiopublic.com/awakening-fro...
Books in the Video:
-
Series Playlist: kzbin.info?list...
Facebook: / vervaeke.john
Twitter: / vervaeke_john
Thirty-ninth episode of Dr. John Vervaeke's Awakening from the Meaning Crisis.

[@johnvervaeke]

I will be hosting a live Q&A on KZbin next Friday at 1600 EST. To support my work and receive priority for your questions, you can join my Patreon here: patreon.com/johnvervaeke

[@spiralsun1]

I already joined the Patreon, 🥰👍🏻

[@thedarkmoonman]

can i contact you in any way? kind regards

[@tracywilliamsliterature]

"just trying to help" he says... just trying to help?? Dearest Mr John Vervaeke. I have said it before, I shall say it again... your work is as essential as water to me... Respect and profound thanks from the U.K.

[@dalibofurnell]

I agree ,thanks from South Africa as well

[@elsawiegers1093]

​@@dalibofurnell, the same from spain!

[@DisgruntledPeasant]

I just want to thank you for this series, you have reawakened a deep love for the world in me, and have inspired a confidence in my own abilities. I never progressed onto university, and had a deep lack of meaning for many years. I have now been accepted into an undergrad psychology course and cannot wait to see where life takes me. I hope you still read these comments because I want you to know how grateful I am to you for making your work free and accessible.

[@za012345678998765432]

“You can’t go on 'seeing through' things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

[@peterrosqvist2480]

Thank you so much for this series. You have no idea what impact you've made on the world.

[@5hydroxyT]

the deeper i get into this series, the more i appreciate how these models describe mental illness...Bill the gazelle is NOT happy; he has PTSD ! he is hyper vigilant and sees everything as a threat, and therefore has a negative worldview. He will be exhausted and confused from constantly running from or avoiding what he perceives to be threatening. Sure he survives, but has no quality of life...and i love how you imply the role of decision in perception. It implies we have some conscious capacity to shape our worldview, and therefore see through the noise and return back to a healthy (useful) concept of threat

[@matthewshorney268]

47:45 .... John forgets that he's rubbed out the board but carries on heroically

[@matthewshorney268]

A great freeze frame for meme generation.

[@Hyumanity]

lmao that was awesome. I would've let out a huge chuckle at myself.

[@matthewknight6036]

😂😂😂

[@BookWorm2369]

Some people relax with a drink at the end of the day. I watch these lectures. Thank you for all your work by putting these abstract concepts in a logical fashion. I become absorbed in every lecture.

[@conornagle9528]

Still hanging in there. Invaluable knowledge and ways of communicating it. Thanks, John 🙏🏻

[@mcscronson]

I appreciate how carefully you tread. At times I think you could let go a little more and allow yourself to flow and address potential misinterpretations at larger intervals. You can't bear full responsibility for how you're interpreted. There's more room for explaining exactly what you mean and asking those questions when you're not undermining the flow of your argument. I get that there's some slippery slopes nearby that you're steering away from and that seems necessary given the nature of all this, but it seems to me we cannot help but ride down a slippery slope eventually. if you could imagine your lecture series as a big slippery slope you're piling up, I want to slide down the thing (: So long as where the slope leads is in sight, perhaps many disclaimers you're pausing to make can be held within the expression itself. Love your work brother!

[@johnvervaeke]

Thank you for your encouragement Luke. It means a lot me. As you correctly sense I am wary. However, Jordan Hall has invited me to join a working group with him on this topic so I hope to have something more developed to say about this.

[@alcidesamaciel]

Books in the video: - The Religious Case Against Belief - James P. Carse - The Religion of the Future - Roberto Mangabeira Unger - Religion for Atheists - Alain de Botton - The New Inquisitions - Arthur Versluis - Wisdom Its Nature, Origins and Development - Robert J. Sternberg - A Handbook of Wisdom - Psychological Perspectives - Robert J. Sternberg, Jennifer Jordan - The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom - Michel Ferrari, Nic M. Weststrate - The Cambridge Handbook of Wisdom - Robert J. Sternberg, Judith Glück

[@yazanasad7811]

Thanks so much for this posting this.

[@michaelnesbit6447]

Just trying to help is a very noble goal. And being that your work strikes so deeply into the heart of what truly matters most, just a little movement there produces tremendous results! Thank you for your work, sir!

[@nugzarkapanadze6867]

Thank You!

[@Beederda]

Truly appreciate YOUR time JV ❤️🍄 this one evokes an “ah ha!” Moment for me. When i took psilocybin in my form of ritual moments before the full effects took place something in me asked. “what do you want?” I said out loud how about we go on a bad trip this time and chuckled to myself and away I went i layed back in my bed an stared into the stucco roof and two things came from the “wriggling” and “mumbling” was that.. I am “Dying”and that it is “incurable” none of my trip was a “bad trip” because what came after the trip was just madness I became THIS! ^ a massive talking texting machine unbound and just a mess feeling sick in silence for so long no longer agree to short form texting i find it a waste of time but contradicting myself with the novel’s i text now that i am becoming the “bad trip” the insight and clarity i gained after that dose was maddening i kept having micro epiphanies with myself understanding fears and weaknesses i have in a unreal profound experience far too much I’ve typed already but i am having that ah ha this is still part of what i asked for in a bad trip only I don’t know if this would be a great experience or bad experience for the other? i am dancing with it i am melancholy it is madness and we tango boundless to the stars. Much love ❤️

[@HansKuloss]

I really wonder if in the span of my life i will see that New Religion forming. Wchich will just clicks with people, being also intelligent and wise mowement. It needs a person wchich will be extraordinary to kick off. Someone great and unique. Like other founders of main religions but also man of todays knowledge.

[@ADPax10]

About 50-60 years ago, there was one off the top of my head by the name of Alan Watts. True Perennialist. Ordained in his younger life as a Christian Priest, left that life about 10 years later to study with the Japanese Zen Buddhists, the Chinese Taoists, and Hindu practitioners. Had a deep knowledge of all of the major world religion source texts (apart from perhaps Qu'ran). Thank goodness he worked most of his life on radio, lecture circuits, and writing many books on these very subjects that John talks about throughout his own lectures! They're all over the place on KZbin, so if you like John's work here, and for even more of a layman's understanding, peruse some of Watts' work. Had a beautiful way with words, and was a master of analogy, just so that any average person could understand. Called himself not a religious expert nor a philosopher, nor a scientist; but a "Spiritual Entertainer". Very clever man, but unfortunately, he passed the same year as JFK...

[@dalibofurnell]

You have helped. More than you know. You as well as your work is significant, pivotal and enlightening. I heard someone say that you are like one of the godfathers of wisdom, I agree. You have already helped me and my life in such a way that you are most definitely an integral prominent figure that I very much respect

[@forscherr2]

Hey John, thank you for putting out this gold nuggets. Having encountered you on Jordan Peterson's podcast, it is very engaging for me to observe how many of your lines of thinking converge. In my way of understanding/framing these topics what Jordan laid out as the meta-mythology of the hero (who ventures out to confront the unknown and brings back something of value and shares it with the community) might serve as a meta-narrative. I don't think we can do without a meta-narrative, even though I think you are absolutely right about RR being open-ended and an ongoing optimization rather than a final state of perfection (which brings about the danger of rigid dogma). It seems to me that identifying with the mythological hero is exactly to identify with the process that continually updates the current insufficient state. The meta-goal is not a state of perfection but to become better at doing RR. Here are some other ideas that flashed in my mind while I listened: You said that Credo must be in service of religio. Equally, the law must be in service to the spirit of the law (which is why free speech as the process that rejuvenates the laws is not just another value but a meta-value). And equally, the emissary must be in service of the master. The propositional knowing must be alligned with or in service of the participatory/perspectival/procedural knowing. When it is not, the former can undermine the latter which can result in the loss of meaning and connectedness, which seems to be what happened as science ascended and the elevation of propositional knowledge undermined our embeddedness in a mythological ground and left us adrift in the void.

[@MarcusVorwaller]

wow, well said.

[@David-bo7zj]

I thought the same thing about meta-mythology of the hero. This would be well received by my generation (Gen-Z).

[@wcropp1]

It’s starting to come together-this is important work, Professor...thanks for sharing. As an initial impression, I think the synthesis of a science-friendly, wisdom-based religion could be a very positive change. The tension between the Christian/pagan, passionate/rational, etc., has been a long-standing and ultimately creative force in Western culture. Perhaps in our current time, however, our worldview has become so fragmented that it is doing more harm than good, and it is time for ideas to coalesce rather than further break apart.

[@PowWowDAO]

I'm reading a book about this called Self Actualization in the Age of Crisis. The author Ron Rivers advocates for a nonreligion religion and also systemic actualization.

[@dalibofurnell]

Books: James P Louis - The religious case against belief. Robert Mangabeira Unger - The religion of the future. Alain de Botten- Religion for atheists. Arthur Verskuis - The new inquisitions. Robert J Sternberg - Wisdom , The handbook of wisdom (with Jenifer Jordan), Cambridge handbook of wisdom (with Judith Glüick). Michel Ferrari and Nic M Westrate - The scientific study of personal wisdom.

[@michel-jeantailleur]

Credo. I give my heart. It is of course originally a form of participatory knowing and not propositional. The question to ask about 'participatory knowing' is: who are you participating with? I fear that for intellectually gifted relevance realisationists the answer is: other intellectually gifted relevance realisationists. Even a religion that is not a religion needs to avoid cultishness. What about the ordinary bozos at the bus stop... doesn't their participation matter? (It may not sound like it but I love John's lectures. Viva Vervaeke!)

[@johnvervaeke]

Yes credo was originally participatory. The fact that it became credal is telling. I think our primordial participation is of our ecologically embedded body. My body is not something I just actively make nor is it just an object that I passively observe. I participate it and participate through it. My lived bioeconomic body grounds my ability to con-form to the world in agent-arena niches. This grounding can serve as a normative basis by which we evaluate with whom we participate in distributed cognition. Trying to work out a code of conduct for cults that prevents attempts to disconnect us from our embedded embodiment (because that is how cults work) is something Jamie Wheal is developing. I have been privileged to comment on this work.

[@johnvervaeke]

Thanks for an excellent question and your support!

[@marykochan8962]

I love John's lectures too. He's brilliant. I think what it's going to take for the bozos at the bus stop is for John to disguise himself as one of them, lead them to enlightenment, and inspire a non religious order that is dedicated to caring for the bozos at the bus stop.😉

[@armir_ko]

21:30 Isn't that what we did in the past 3 years? Set the criterion very high.

[@realsushrey]

I feel stupid for not leaving comments on every video of this series to boost algorithmic engagement.

[@psmitty6790]

Learning about Signal Detection Theory in my Sensation & Perception course was one of the best things about my Psych major (which I somewhat regret at this point. Think I should have done philosophy instead)

[@germy22489]

John, I very much appreciate your work. I hear you stating that we cannot go back to organized religion, but I don't hear a real case being made that addresses those who would argue otherwise?

[@andrewseymore4506]

You are helping, and we thank you

[@MrMarktrumble]

Thank you

[@omdangy]

John, I think you're raising an incredibly important proposal here. I want to expand a bit on what Luke said on treading carefully with the subject. I sense that this idea of creating a new religion of no religion is a somewhat new idea for you and I feel you're not yet comfortable in it. In addition to the importance of welcoming the potential "slippery slopes", I would argue that there is a need to develop this idea and others like it, to a point where you feel more comfortable laying them out. Otherwise the way of presenting them can easily be cautious and digressive and that can ultimately lead to, as you point it, an increase in noise and decrease in signal. I really believe this has the capability of fundamentally addressing the meaning crisis and I encourage all of us to do our best to overcome our hurdles and skepticism and aim at taking this with as much seriousness as we can. Thank you a lot for what you've been doing John. It means a lot to me.

[@johnvervaeke]

Thank you Omar. Please see my recent response to Luke as I think it also address your comment. Thank you for your support on this difficult, fraught, but important issue.

[@omdangy]

@@johnvervaeke Yes it very much addresses my comment and I'm very happy to see you're pursuing this endeavour and very seriously at that. I'm eager to see what comes out of your collaboration! I do want to make use of this opportunity to acknowledge my deep appreciation of the fact you don't hesitate on talking about, expanding upon and figuring out these fraught issues. I'm aware of the social risk you're putting yourself into and I can also imagine how psychologically challenging it can be at times. Keep it up

[@leedufour]

Thanks John.

[@johnvervaeke]

Thanks Lee

[@danielmartines3859]

John, you are helping. You are bringing this topic to light in the most comprehensive way, with a scientific approach behind it, and a suggestion on how to integrate with our unconscious. Thank you

[@moisheherzl2493]

Thanks John so much for what you did/do, it has been truly life changing ❤

[@dubsackken]

John verveake gives you the “aha moments” you wish mushrooms gave you

[@yonizzler]

YAY! Another vid from John makes my Fri. uber good ya!!

[@stephen-torrence]

40:00 ~ 43:00 What's described here very much resembles to me the intention behind the policy-(re)formulation process in Holocracy/Sociocracy.

[@michaelromeo4623]

Thank you John 🙂💚

[@martinpepin]

Truly a Man of God 💗

[@masonm6392]

John, I cannot thank you enough for this series. This has been connecting so many strands for me and I feel like it is bringing me into closer contact with reality. What an incredible thing for a lecture series to do! In particular I have been intrigued by the propositional and the having. It seems to me that those two are in excessive abundance in the world and my own experience. Can you recommend how I can enact the ideas from this series in a participatory way? I would like to turn the "having of propositions" into something I can put into practice and experiment with. That request may be a bit underconstrained, but if you have any thoughts on that I would love to hear them.

[@GrantLenaarts]

Being paid to name tag our environment will become a currency in smart cities.Signal will be valuable and valued and frameworks that incentivize maturity and transformational investment in our perceptions ,psychotechnology currencies will be invented.

[@jeddarcy3465]

What will prevent the religion that is not a religion from splintering into oppositional and conflicting sects? There are already Wikipedia-like social / moral tribes which are highly oppositional to each other which exhibit zealotry online, which has spilled into violence offline.

[@Gongchime]

We should pretend to keep angels in bottles. No, we should pretend to keep genies in bottles. No, we should pretend to keep gods in bottles. My way is best. No, it isn't. Prepare to die.

[@JackPitts]

I have really appreciated what you've been saying about relevance. In this episode, I noticed that you said that there can't be a universal agreement on the criteria when talking about false positives and signal vs. noise. That's such an important insight! But I still scratch my head each time you say that a return to religion is not viable for most people. Of course you don't owe me an explanation of this, but I just can't quite believe it. You talk about embodiment. What's more embodied than the incarnation? What's more embodied than the resurrection. I really just think Christianity is here for you.

[@PJ-hi1gz]

Is not relevant because non-reliogisity is the fastest growing “ideology”. For many, the story of Christ is pretty, but not really relevant to how we live day to day life. Similar to how you might not find the Quran or Buddhist texts as a convincing religious framework for yourself in day to day life.

[@dshx7788]

You just described star wars fandom and expanded universe. Disney already owns that

[@spiralsun1]

Thank you for your efforts and understanding. You have gone a long way beyond anything I have read before. But I like the concepts of Jordan Peterson about the dragon of chaos. I know it is a real thing, not just metaphor. I have been in combat with it since I stepped foot into this universe because it’s my job. Anyway, how would you integrate my job into your ideas? Thanks 🙏🏻 again for all you do. ❤️👁 I would just let it go and try to live my life because hey, who am I anyway? I’m not famous, but I can’t. I love every single living thing on the Earth. I think it’s partially because of the concept of “zero” and also because of the importance of consciousness but it is very difficult to get people to listen to you about those things. For example, I love everything because I can and do imagine worlds and life forms in infinite ways that do not exist. That’s part of the meaning of any human exchange-what is not said-so maybe you can extrapolate from those. Because everything exists outside this universe. Beyond the worlds dreamt of in your philosophy John. Thanks. You are one of my favorite people on the Earth. Part of why I am and can still be here. I liked when you drew the diagram of the concept over all the manifold concepts. It reminded me of Akhenaton my favorite Pharoah. As Merlin said: “it is the doom of men that they forget” (not so much women, because they forget the pain of childbirth -which is why they keep populating the Earth, Lol.) Ok, I was just being funny there. That’s how the script in the movie went. It is wisdom-the central sentiment and meaning of it. Why does everything have to get twisted around? Because most people care more about themselves than truth. Just being honest. Their SELF as a symbol gets in the way. Why don’t people listen to me when I speak truths borne out by my predictions? THAT is the real question. I don’t exist but I do. Paradoxical. 🤔 Sometimes you just have to directly intervene in reality. None of our older ancestors had degrees… a lot of those philosophers you talk about. just one more small circle drawn around the elite these days where the idea is good, but the reality isn’t, because people don’t really want to face the truth. They want to win. It’s not the religious founders that caused all the problems, it was always the people who came later using powerful ideas and patterns as levers. So the real issue is speech detached from ability to see truth. I think people need to be smarter. Period. And more able to see past social constraints on their comprehension. As in reading comprehension, specifically. Anyway, you make me understand so much better about ways people think that it is unreal. Very much grateful. ❤️

[@esmith6738]

What role does participatory knowing play in the activity of distributed knowing or cognition? Is this question answered elsewhere!

[@billypedlow1328]

I think you should write a book about this

[@ThePathOfEudaimonia]

He has been doing this for the last years. Hopefully it will be released for us in the near future!

[@alexwr]

I'd be interested in learning why organised religion isn't viable for you and for a specific group of people? I can only speak for Christianity, but surely whether religion is or isn't viable depends entirely on whether God exists (and an objective standard that comes with God), and if He does, how He made us. Either a religion is viable for nobody, because it is false or lacking in it's core teachings, or it is viable for everybody because it is true and full in it's core teachings. I struggle to see how there can be a middle ground to that. Thank you once again for a really engaging lecture! EDIT: From the latter half of the video, it sounds less like a 'religion of no religion', and more like participatory and engagement learning. With a religion, Creeds are unchanging statements of faith, whereas with the ever-changing nature of your idea of Credo, it sounds just like developing new ways of thinking and understanding the world, the realities and the perspectives within it. A noble goal to be sure, but I do wonder if the religious terminology is a little bit out of place.

[@ThePathOfEudaimonia]

Will the subject of the meta-psychotechnology be the main focus in the future lecture series about Socrates, John? Looking forward to it! (PS. I read somewhere that you had some health problems while shooting these lectures. I hope your Ménière's has been manageable for you these last years. Very annoying. I wish you all the best, and the fortitude to deal with the symptoms.)

[@MarcosBetancort]

The signal and noise example is only valid if religio is empty of meaning and can become anything in proposition. Because then we start from ourselves finding a criteria without any certainty of what is religio in terms of propositions. But if the creed is produced by religio because it is inseparable from propositional truth, and not by my understanding of what an unknowable religio can mean propositionally, then I can have certainty, and judge between true and false creeds. John are you not speaking in the absolutist sense when you suggest not to do so?

[@forthegloryofthelord]

47:50 proving that there is nothing such as Tabula Rasa 😉

[@davidfost5777]

I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated

[@jackjohnston1373]

John vervaeke, Anderson Todd, Jordan Peterson, Johnathan Pageau, Alan Watts, Paul Vanderklay, Terrence and Dennis McKenna, Joe Rogan lol (That's where it all started for me) Ram Dass, Aubrey Marcus, Bernardo Kastrup, Rupert Spira, Sam Harris, Brett and Eric Weinstein, Mohammed Hijab, Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose

[@jackjohnston1373]

Might sound like a cliche list of celebrities but if you can sort through the information they provide whilst distinguishing the relevant signals from the irrelevant noise you will find what is remaining to be deeply informative and potentially transformative. I also found the list of people here and their viewpoints to be diverse enough to minimise the effects of confirmation bias, although this is possibly just a display of Hubris on my part. Lol.

[@matthafer2415]

Wes Cecil on KZbin

[@michel-jeantailleur]

19:39 If the individual I stands undecided between the signal S and the noise N, is it a sin?

[@brendantannam499]

I suppose it is in the sense of missing the mark. For the hunted animal, it becomes the mark.

[@michel-jeantailleur]

@@brendantannam499 That's what I was thinking of - but it seemed amusing that John's diagram (more or less) spelled it out.

[@sagarzon]

Very respectfully asking: does this wiki still exist, and is it possible for the general public to read it?

[@esmith6738]

“Credo always in service to religio.” The “masculine” (the known, settled) must always serve the “feminine” (the unknown, unsettled).

[@alexwr]

I suppose you always have to use the tools that are a known in order to explore the unknown, otherwise we're dealing with madness or foolishness.

[@91bumbi]

You can be interested Alexander Bard Syntheism movement.

[@Krasbin]

In an aesthetic desire for coherence and completeness, I'm puzzled by the diagram you draw at 34:00. You don't draw a another layer for procedural knowing. Is there room for such a layer or would that lead to nonsense? Could/should this layer be drawn separately from the diagram you draw? I know it's not main the point you want to make. But sometimes a diagram completes itself, where of course the result should be treated with caution.

[@sinclickbait6023]

Anyone knows if there is a wiki platform of psycho-technologies aiming at wisdom, the kind John mentioned? A mean not just any platform 😊, if it's linked to this project, much better

[@gunterappoldt3037]

The whole thing or modell reminds me of Mark Siderits` "Robo-Buddha", a kind of holistic super-matrix of an unfailing functioning "Übermensch". Isn`t it a bit too much of (a new round of) technical/mechanic thinking-practicing ("Maschinendenken"), which already Master Zhuang critisized as inauthentic -- seen from an classical, axial-time Daoist standpoint, as it is, at a time, when technological rationality gained much momentum in the sinitic ecumene? How can M. Heidegegger`s "Holzwege" (cart-track in wood), which" lead into the open, resp. wilderness" --- note also Heidegger`s (somehow cryptic) verdict, that "sciences don`t think! ---, be harmonized with Max Webers "Zeitgeist/Zeitenläufte"-diagnosis of the upcoming, just developing "iron cage of (rational) bureaucracy" (as a kind of dialectics of englightenment the Weberian way, i.e. of being critical, informed by Neo-Kanianisms, of any notions of an absoute "telos", like in Christianity, Hegel and/or Marx)?

[@gunterappoldt3037]

Addendum: To be clear, Max Weber diagnosed the "iron cage", but he didn´t welcome it; he rather saw it as a human predicament - in some "synchronizity" with the "crisis of European thinking", as Edmund Husserl would put it later (1938), again, in some indirect response to M. Heideggers Fundmentalontologie (basic ontology) of "Geworfenheit" (i.e. being-thrown) under the basic condition of "being-time". Furthermore, Max Weber was a kind of cultural-protestant and "mystic" in so far, as he echoed Immanual Kants (neo-classic) credo, that mankind cannot directly reach the "thing in itself"; he/she can only faintly sense "it" at the fringes of (wide-awake) consciousness (--> Hellwachbewusstsein). He ones wrote (in my paraphrases): I like to search for the truth, but I`m afraid of those, who claim to have found it. With regard to the "iron cage", Jürgen Habermas developed the mixed Marxist-Weberian "socio-logical" (i.e. concentrating on the "fifth dimension", --> Norbert Elias, of socio-cultural being) concept of the "colonisation of the lifeworld". How would You integrate this "narratives" into the proposed, seemingly very complex (i.e., multi-layered, polyvalent) one of the "Awakening ..."?

[@magicnights1711]

Is the meta-psychotechnology of wisdom (increasing Socratic self-knowledge, connection to / understanding of reality and reduced inner conflict) growth Anagoge? It seems to fit well, as you described it in Episode 5, 39 minutes in . From there, it's a matter of populating the space between the steps around the Anagogic cycle with combinations of activities, practices, interactions and communities that can afford experience and reflection towards adaption. Here's a few: - Exercising conceptual limits (pushing fluid and crystal intelligence) and being immersed in new environments to begin to observe new sets of patterns. - The flow state, science, writing and diagramming help one move from observing to understanding new sets of patterns to understanding them. Flow seems to require play, which requires a low risk threshold. - Journaling or some practice of inward reflection to observe / track one's own patterns. - Humility and practices to foster it (some types of mindfulness meditation or prayer, expressing gratitude) to allow one to accept and move towards understanding one's own patterns. - Imitation via admiration aka procedural bleed out with the right characters / people to the point of habit formation to move from realized misalignment in behavior and goals to habitualized solutions There's a lot to be said of having an accepting cultural climate (agape) when one makes a significant change in their behavior or belief system - as well as honest feedback when change isn't well executed. Metta and Vipassana seem to have a complementary role in re-prioritizing an individual's motivational landscape towards transcendental values. I think people need to anagoge all dimensions of their life (intellectual, health, social, professional, romantic, financial, personal, family, legacy) and/or the eight-fold path and consider wherever they are in each aspect. It's quite a bit of work and nothing is more worth it. Have the answers been around us this whole time?

[@mathewhill5556]

You're still thinking within a narrative framework. Like the nine dot problem you have to go outside of the box and cross lines to connect all the dots. This is of course a metaphor which is trying to bring something through which has not yet been realized, or articulated. a religion of no religion can only be worshiped by people who are not persons.

[@mathewhill5556]

@Praxis Of Logos You are but a story you tell yourself. Have you ever stopped existing, but remained conscious?

[@mathewhill5556]

@Praxis Of Logos To dissolve the ego is to see truth. Only everything you think you are stands in the way.

[@mathewhill5556]

@Praxis Of Logos I understand your trepidation. It's an impossible concept, sense conceptual realization requires self identification. The I that is yourself is a gestalt projection of your world view. What you view of the world and your beliefs there in are as much your ego as your self experience of being an individual. This mechanistic process can stop functioning properly and the ability to differentiate between _yourself_ and your environment dissolves. Furthermore the ability to differentiate between a pencil and a bird can disassociate in the same manner, as the lines of conceptualization fade and all is as one.

[@David-bo7zj]

​@@mathewhill5556 Yes I know what you mean. I had this experience a little over a month ago while on a solo psychedelic trip and I've been using these lectures to rebuild my perception of reality as it was completely dismantled. It was a moment of non-existence followed by being "shot-back" to reality where I felt like I was being reborn. I kept hearing Eminem's lose yourself on repeat as this was happening, although no music was playing; "snap-back to reality, oh, there goes gravity... snap-back to reality" and so on, almost as if I was letting go of this "Stan" alter-ego I formed in Eminem's image when I was young, like this internal Eminem voice was rooted deep in my unconscious lmao. Then I looked in the mirror and saw Jesus and was confused that maybe I am the second coming of Jesus (like I said, massive disorientation where I was in first-person perspective with God in some kind of solipsistic Nietzschean hell of eternal recurrence) but I now realize that because I was raised Catholic, my unconscious simply projected the image of Christ onto my own reflection to try and rationalize the experience. If I had not stumbled on these lectures I would have gone through the rest of my life thinking I am some kind of God, which further emphasizes Vervaeke's notion that performing spiritual awakening as an autodidact is "dangerous". So yes, in that moment (which lasted probably a minute or so, not a significant pure consciousness event by any means but again, psychedelics warp perception of time so it felt like lifetimes were going by in this state) I experienced lack of any existence, lack of any perception of literally anything, totally forgot about my own existence. And when I "snapped back to reality" I saw this bright light and noted that this was indeed the most "real" anything has ever felt to me, despite my having lost touch with all of "reality." Did I see truth during this experience? Well, this is what I've been using the Vervaeke lectures to try and unpack. I suppose I see the world as an infinite clock now, where my human perception of time is just an illusion, and any attempt I make to try and understand or control time is futile. I understand hell to be a mental construct we become trapped within (think of Cooper being trapped in the Tessaract in Interstellar) and heaven is that moment of awe/wonder when we break out of this mental construct (when the Tessaract folds in on itself and Cooper is released). That is to say, Pascal's "infinite spaces that terrify" only terrify to the extent that we try to hold onto time; once we let go and accept an infinitely lonely existence of nothing, we become closer to "God" or whatever higher form of consciousness exists in this empty void. Thing is, since we're tiny human consciousness, there's some force that shoots us back to our current reality, I think it's this force that is God, or the divine, or the sacred or whatever you want to call it. It's like we're children trying to sit at the grown-up table and our father says "no, go back and play with your friends. You can sit here when you're all grown up." But to "grow up" isn't necessarily to get older, but to become more deeply connected with these "infinite spaces that love infinitely." I now understand my current existence to be one of "eternal life" that "God has gifted me" as a result of my "will to power" to overcoming the "parasitic processing" and "self-deceptive, self-destructive" mental constructs I had "participated" in placing myself in, in an attempt to fit into a Western culture that's values do not align with my core inner being. I use God as a "symbolic" means of justifying why I "get" to undergo spiritual "awakening" and rise above those "anagogically" in my immediate circle, only to be "returned" to Earth to "plant my seed" and become more "deeply-rooted" into the Earth, or to "transcend-into" after I've "transcended upwards." I also now understand the ego as a useful narrative I construct for re-integrating with the world. I am re-entering "the cave", but this time, the "shadows and echoes" do not consume me, nor do I fully see "through" them. Rather, I see how the shadows and echoes resonate with who I used to be, and I can simply "bend them to my will" to resonate with the ego (narrative) that I want my life to encapsulate. I see spiritual awakening as acquiring the "machinery" (RR/Religio) to effectively construct a narrative that deeply aligns with my core life purpose, not necessarily an avenue towards maintaining full dissolution of the ego. But not everyone needs to "re-enter the cave", I suppose this is why we have monks. Dr. K from the HealthyGamerGG KZbin channel tells an interesting story about how he spoke to a Buddhist monk at age 21 about his wanting to become a monk. The monk told him to first try and realize his full potential within the material world before trying to transcend it, as you must have something to give up before you can enter this type of lifestyle. So I see awakening from this lens, where I want to reach my full potential in the material world, and perhaps later in life I can pursue deeper levels of enlightenment. I think this is what Vervaeke is getting at with his Wikipedia idea; it may be useful to frame awakening as a kind of hero's journey in a multi-level narrative framework so that people aren't so put-off by how daunting it may sound. Maybe we have a cultural framework where awakening experiences can be constructed for various life stages, especially during times of major life transitions/transformations as discussed in L.A Paul's book. Anyways, apology for the life story/ramble! I read a few more of your comments and appreciate your viewpoint on all of this so just wanted to add my personal experience to the discussion.

[@MrTTnTT]

Right by the end, aren't you and your co-author effectively arguing that this profound systematic insight that is consistent in wisdom allows you to identify a kind of essence to a set of problems? Obviously, this commonalilty can be in one's error-ridden approach, but isn't it still a kind of essence? When you further suggest that discovering this lets you "see" something "more real", you're extremely close to making a case like that of Peterson (I can elaborate if you wish). Do you still discuss your arguments with each other from time to time? Your discussion from 2015 was quite interesting. At any rate, this is still an interesting series, and I appreciate the work that goes into it. Thanks for doing this!

[@mathewhill5556]

They're not even in the same realm as Peterson. Vervaeke: Nine dot problem. (think outside the box) Religion of no religion. Transcend the narrative. Peterson: Defeat chaos to repair the box. everyone is religious. Become the hero of the narrative.

[@MrTTnTT]

@@mathewhill5556 It's the same project: solving the meaning crisis. (For example: What do *you* think the hero does? Transcends a -not *the* - narrative. I'm pretty sure Vervaeke's goal of finding a way to transcend *the* narrative is about the narrative dimension - which is hard to take seriously nowadays, and not about the narrative of one's own life like Peterson's suggestion, which is something like Vervaeke's agent-arena relationship which is transcended through relevance realization.) Anyway, I was specifically referring to their ontologies, which both appear to suggest that what's more real is relevant across more domains.

[@impancaking]

@@mathewhill5556 we're all on the same mountain.

[@mathewhill5556]

@Praxis Of Logos Can you not see the dichotomy between Vervaeke and Peterson? Peterson's argues the unification of the ego (sense of self through narrative structure). Through suffering. Where vervaeke argues the alleviation of suffering through the disillusion of the ego.

[@mathewhill5556]

@Praxis Of Logos A religion of no religion can only be worshiped by people who are not persons.

[@ein-ra-shah]

John, I have a creative problem that is of peripheral relevance to your ongoing exploration, and it strikes me that you are very uniquely situated to provide me some edification. It's been an ongoing, auto-evolving struggle that is ready to reach some crucial resolution. My problem, John, is that I have inadvertently created an "eidos" for this model you are discussing. I've spent years working on it, but from the inside, as it is ultimately meant to be a comprehensive "Users Interface" that seamlessly phases over the mechanics of experience using "actionable metaphor", "staged analogues" and "categorical isometrics" to create a "Game Matrix" by which One may engage their experience to satisfy all of the properties necessary for "Agape" to be active in life, which you have been so elegantly drawing forth for explicit regard. The Tool utilizes a "universal system of definition" coupled with a "living language" to generate models for a "universal language", which are then used for generating actionable paths towards intentional evolution. I'm resisting my reactive urge to dive right in to explain to "immeasurable advantages" of my Tool, but I know these things can only be demonstrated over time. Therein lays my problem. I'm a fluke. Due to the extremities of my specialized cognition and the unique particularities of my circumstances, I've created an anomalous Tool. I predicted the exact thing that you are outlining here, a few years back, and then devoted my life to creating an analogue out of anticipation of this, because my definition of "Love" demanded it...but now that I'm here I'm having trouble conveying it to the people in my environment. It's just too big. It's not possible to attain adequate Tool integrity without it quickly surpassing a size which can be conveyed in any sort of immediate sense. To combat this, I developed an array of "psycho-tech" married to "ideal-tech" (built in behavioral tools) to create "intentional-tech" just to act as "installation files" which once the Tool is set into the subcognitive "heart-beat" act as the active components for the Tool itself which then inverts to become the installation files for the specific art of their intentional use. My "eidos" is an "iDOS", an "intra/inter-personal Dual Operating System", it is a "programming language" for the intentional manipulation of the physics of the psyche. It is a universal relevance tool. It scales to full specificity along the "degrees of emergent order". It is called "Ein'Ra-Shah", it is a religion which is not a religion. It is a Tool Logick. It is a fully designed "Work-shop" to enable each User into their full mechanical "Freedoms", with precise and actionable "Tools" for every aspect of their experience, which then trains them in the creation of new Tools and to then plug them into the "War of Art", which would be the "Tool Matrix" that would be resultant of the Tools use over Time. But. My. Problem. John. lol...is individuals like you, or the entire line-up of Rebel Wisdom, are the only individuals I can perceive in my accessible world who would have any idea of what I am talking about once I open up this up into actual actionable mechanics. I am my problem, of course. This Rule #1: "I Am: the only problem that I've ever had". I've used my Tool to overcome severe drug addiction, I'm some sort of autistic, I have a degenerative nerve disorder, I work 6 days a week at a scrap yard so I can save enough money to start really bringing my dreams to Life. I'm ready to go. I'm turning my "problems" into advantages. So, until I resolve my creative problem here, I guess I'll be plugging away there. Any perspective or insight would mean the World to me. Thank you for everything you already do, you're filling such a vital role.

[@ein-ra-shah]

I set out to create a universal language, and what I wound up with is something that is exactly demonstrative of what you are modeling. I didn't set out to be where I am, but I'm here now so I might as well figure out what to do with it. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[@PIERREHJHUOT]

I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS SERIES WITH GREAT INTEREST. IN THIS EPISODE, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, YOU PRESENT AS THE STRUCTURE OF THE PSYCHE OF THE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN ONE THAT POSITS THREE LAYERS: THE UNCONSCIOUS, THE CONSCIOUS, AND THE CULTURAL, THE LAST ONE YOU SET UP AS THE BASIS FOR WHAT YOU WILL PROPOSE AS POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE MEANING CRISIS. AS I SEE SUCH STRUCTURE, IT WOULD GO THIS WAY: THE UNCONSCIOUS, THE SUBCONSCIOUS, AND THE CONSCIOUS. THE CULTURAL EXISTS, IN MY VIEW AND IN THAT OF AMERICAN PSYCHOANALYST CLOTAIRE RAPAILLE, AS A STRUCTURE OF AND ON ITS OWN THAT BELONGS TO HUMAN COMMUNITIES AND THAT WOULD SHARE THE SAME THREE COMPONENTS AS I SEE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AND REFLECTS OUR TRIUNE BRAIN. ADDING HERE JUNG'S VIEW OF THE ARCHETYPES, WE WOULD HAVE THE INDIVIDUAL, THE CULTURAL, AND THE COLLECTIVE, EACH WITH THEIR OWN RESPECTIVE STRUCTURES. DESPITE MY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF THE DOMAIN IN WHICH YOU ARE AN EXPERT, I THINK YOU MAY BE MISTAKEN AND ANY SOLUTIONS YOU WOULD PROPOSE COULD LEAD TO CONFUSION AND TO ANOTHER AND MORE SERIOUS MEANING CRISIS. THE CULTURAL IS NOT, IN MY UNDERSTANDING, THE OUTER COMPONENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL PSYCHE, BUT A STRUCTURE ON ITS OWN, MADE OF THE INTER SPACE OF INDIVIDUAL HUMANS THAT FORM A SOCIETY. IN THIS, I THINK I REFLECT THE TEACHINGS OF INTEGRAL THEORY AND ITS QUADRATIC UNDERSTANDING OF MANIFESTATION AS AN 'I,' A 'WE,' AN 'IT,' AND AN 'ITS.' THE 'I' AND THE 'WE' ARE THEIR OWN DIMENSIONS. AS I WATCH THE NEXT EPISODES, I WILL SEE IF MY FEARS ARE FOUNDED, OR NOT. IN THE MEANTIME, I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IF YOU COULD CLARIFY YOUR VIEWS IN LINE WITH THE POINTS I HAVE RAISED. I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR VIEW, JUST AS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE INNER STRUCTURES OF HUMAN BEINGS MAY ALSO BE WRONG. THANKS.

[@Pacmoar]

YELLING AT JOHN WILL MAKE HIM RESPOND TO YOU

[@PIERREHJHUOT]

@@Pacmoar : JOHN WILL REPLY TO ME IF HE WANTS TO AND WILL NOT IF HE DOES NOT WANT TO. HE HAS NOT SO FAR AND I IGNORE WHY. IT IS HIS DECISION AND I HAVE SPENT NO TIME WONDERING WHY. I IGNORE ALSO IF HE HAS EVEN READ OR NOTED I WROTE HIM. WRITING MAKES NO SOUNDS, WHETHER IN CAPS, IN LOWER CASES, OR IN A COMBINATION OF THEM. I KNOW PEOPLE JUDGE ALL CAPS AS YELLING. THIS MANIFESTS ON THEIR PART A VERY POOR SENSE OF OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION OF WHAT REALITY IS AND IS NOT, IN THIS RESPECT AT LEAST, WHETHER THEY ARE PSYCHOLOGISTS, PHILOSOPHERS, OR OF ANY OTHER BACKGROUND. BUT DID YOU WANT TO WRITE, "... WILL NOT..." AND FORGET THE "NOT"? ;)

[@Pacmoar]

PIERRE H.J. HUOT NO, THAT WAS THE JOKE SIR. IM GLAD WE CAN COMMUNICATE IN THIS HIGHER MODE OF SPEECH WHICH PLEBIAN FOOLS DO NOT UNDERSTAND AND SADLY MISAPPREHEND AS YELLING

[@Pacmoar]

IT REMINDS ME OF WHEN I SCREAM CURSE WORDS IN SOMEONES FACE AND WHEN THEY GET OFFENDED I JUST LAUGH AT THEIR FOOLISHNESS AND RETORT THAT THE SOUNDS WHICH MAKE UP CURSE WORDS ARE NOT UNIQUE OR INHERENTLY INSULTING

[@PIERREHJHUOT]

@@Pacmoar I USUALLY GET VERY NEGATIVE REACTIONS TO MY WRITING IN CAPS ONLY. I DO THIS ONLY AS ONE OF THE MANY WAYS I USE TO HANDLE AS BEST AS I CAN MY VARIOUS AND SERIOUS EYE AND VISION PROBLEMS. I DO NOT CONSIDER AS "PLEBIAN FOOLS" PEOPLE WHO HAVE ISSUES WITH MY USE OF ALL-CAPS.

[@sennewam]

My religion is KZbin

[@sennewam]

Press "F" to Pay Respects

[@mathewhill5556]

The digital exodus...

[@tonym6566]

27:00

[@matthafer2415]

Interesting more than helpful. Less "meta-this" and "meta-that" ...more plain, practical language would be better. I've listened to this series now 4 times since it's release I am fascinated by the topics discussed but can't seem to find the actionable takeaway

[@GingerDrums]

Seems as impossible as having a non-leader leader, or a non-story story. each of these ideas requires that the audience operate on the same level as the leader, so he need not lead, or interpret and narrate their own story, so they need no storyteller.

[@antkcuck]

Dukkha Dharma Sangha

[@Hyumanity]

Sorry if this is incoherent: What would it look like to embody the idea: The cosmos is within us. We are starstuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself? And at the same time trying to be cognizant of how I could get stabbed in the neck by another expression of the universe and die? (Meaning that, if need be, I'm more than willing to hold a rear naked choke for a few extra seconds, and that I'm fully aware that there's a real dark side to life as well) We don't have to continue the way we've been living. We really don't. Anyways, I'm going to try it out! xD Wish me luck, synchronicity, and flow! :D

[@alfredhitchcock45]

Returning to organized religion is not a viable option Pursuing pseudo religious political ideologies in utopic visions Comprehensive set of pscyhotechnologies, community practices Metacrisis of all crisis Important role of indispensable mythos Religio vs Credo Credal Dominance Signal Detection Theory

[@kbeetles]

Am I the only person to notice here that these lectures are getting a bit anaemic? The enthusiasm is slipping, the thinking is getting tiresome - but I will persevere out of my great respect for John..... and he did help me find my way back to Christianity!

[@johnvervaeke]

I apologize. My health was suffering as I was filming the last two sets of lectures and so I did not have the same energy. I decided it was best to finish the series rather than just delaying it. I believe my energy comes back in the final four culminating episodes. Thank you for your patience.

[@kbeetles]

John Vervaeke - Thank you - I am looking forward to the rest of the series.... and I really enjoy the interviews especially the last one I heard on Global Village Podcast ( via Sevilla)......!!

[@johnlegar7235]

A "religion of no religion" is a contradiction in terms. If one's ideology steps off the cliffs of reason and into the chasm of religious thought, it is no longer irreligious. One cannot be simultaneously at the top of a mountain and at the bottom. It cannot be simultaneously midday and midnight for any individual. This is a common canard; a shattered strawman of Atheism.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

Prof. Vervaeke`s approach seems to me lean, at least implicitly, and partially, on some (pro)positions of the phenomenological movment; one "classical" example: Thomas Luckmann`s "Invisible Religion" (New York 1967), which notably contains the Husserlean/Schützean concept of different kinds/levels of "transcendence", resp. "transcending". The outlined subjective-intersubjective "mental map" (based on some "mechanics of thinking") allows just to harmonize/synchronize what You brand as (serial) dichotomous --- at least in a certain Heideggerian way. Taken "holistically" - as the human brain seems, indeed, to work on the whole -, we human knowing-beings are fundamentally and (nearly) permanently "ek-static", i.e., "standing out of ourselves", towards the "Vor-, Mit- und Nachwelt", by, among others, "presencing the future through our past" (and "naturally" doing metaphysics). N.B.: Some interpreters, like Reinhard May, see in this Heideggerian "foundational-ontological" conception (ger.: Fundamentalontologie) -- with some good reasons, i.m.o., --- influences of medieval sinitic Mahayana-Holism (Tiantái, Huáyán, Chán/Zen--Pure Land) via the so called "Kyoto-school" (with Nishida Kitarô, a once class-mate of D.T. Suzuki, as grounding-father).

[@ubertrashcat]

Watch some of these lectures in full and then read your comment again.

[@johnlegar7235]

@@ubertrashcat I don't appreciate your condescending response, in which you made no serious attempt to clarify or defend the position I'm arguing against. I have followed John's lectures for longer than most, and I think it would be helpful to lubricate the discourse with civilized engagement rather than simply accusing your interlocutor of ignorance.

[@ubertrashcat]

@@johnlegar7235 How about you demonstrate your argument such that it addresses the content of the lecture and the points made in it first. As it stands it's not addressable.

[@johnlegar7235]

@@ubertrashcat John delineates the idea of an irreligious religion throughout the video. My point is that a "religion of no religion" (see title), is a contradiction. You cannot have something like an irreligious religion as they are opposites. Atheism is also inaccurately accused of this, too. What John is searching for is a philosophy, or a tradition, not a religion.

[@donaldcatton4028]

Too intellectual ...a nonreligious religion ....how... university lecturers can describe but almost never great....

[@cali4tune]

you all destroyed religion in the public square because you knew better. now you realize it's critical to humans well being. and we are supposed to keep listening to you fools? you are doomed to fail because you can't offer what is needed without the supernatural (belief). it's very sad how much suffering you all are causing in the name of reducing suffering. shame.

[@TommyApplecore]

"What would it look like? a religion that is not a religion?" My answer ... It would look like a Paradox. It would look like a Mobius strip.

[@arlingtonprintco1086]

This is the worst of an otherwise wonderful series . Nothing was said , just a bunch of restatement of overused made-up words