God, Infinity, The Sacred, Prayer, Relations vs. Objects | John Vervaeke

The deepest dive into John Vervaeke's mind, with Curt Jaimungal.
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
Timestamps:
00:00 - Vervaeke Foundation
03:23 - The Sacred
11:58 - Yoneda Lemma
18:36 - Reductionism
29:29 - Sentience
36:55 - Paradoxes
48:52 - Eastern and Western Religions
51:13 - Radical Ideas
54:40 - Dialogistical Practices
01:02:33 - Worldviews
01:07:05 - Prayer
01:16:05 - Core Insights
01:17:53 - Does Infinity Exist
01:19:20 - Prayer (continued)
01:27:12 - Reality Is Intelligible
01:39:24 - Belief In God
01:52:38 - What Drives John?
01:55:10 - Support TOE
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything
Links Mentioned:
- Graham Priest w/ Curt on Logic and Contradiction: • Graham Priest: Logic, ...
- John's KZbin Channel: / @johnvervaeke
- Mindfest Playlist: • Mindfest (Ai & Conscio...
- Jonathan Pageau Interview: • Jonathan Pageau: Metap...
- Bernardo Kastrup Interview: • Escaping the Illusion:...
- Neoplatonism and the Path of Transformation: • Neoplatonism and the P...
#philosophy #spirituality #science

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Timestamps: 00:00 - Vervaeke Foundation 03:23 - The Sacred 11:58 - Yoneda Lemma 18:36 - Reductionism 29:29 - Sentience 36:55 - Paradoxes 48:52 - Eastern and Western Religions 51:13 - Radical Ideas 54:40 - Dialogistical Practices 01:02:33 - Worldviews 01:07:05 - Prayer 01:16:05 - Core Insights 01:17:53 - Does Infinity Exist 01:19:20 - Prayer (continued) 01:27:12 - Reality Is Intelligible 01:39:24 - Belief In God 01:52:38 - What Drives John? 01:55:10 - Support TOE

[@Tripp111]

Relativity is Relation.

[@Tripp111]

Love Vervaeke's laugh @39:30.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

To consider oneself a guru you must be a master of the endgame and playing everything from the backwards this way inevitabilities are realized and things that were normally glossed over and thought can be brought up by this route mindset that becomes Guru esk because of its broad ability to point out flaws produced by the concentrated mindset...

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

13:14 its a toroid... all full circle.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

All this crap that's being spewed here can be easily avoided by just admitting The Logical truth that everything came from a singularity AKA God aka Big Bang which is all encompassing and completely alone and this is a kaleidoscope reality where that Singularity can go to forget the fact that it's all encompassing and completely alone... we are not the fundamental highest spatial Dimension here in a 3 + 1 System...

[@Formscapes]

Bout time Vervaeke got interviewed with someone capable of contending with his intellectual caliber

[@Eudaemoniac]

Vervake is a pseud

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

Good point...imho all communities like John's consist of well meaning people throwing each other easy pitches so they can make easy home runs, no wonder they get crushed if they try to take their techniques into the real world where people fight dirty.

[@mills8102]

A collab with him and yourself at some point would be interesting.

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

@@mills8102 What's a good @formscapes video to watch for the uninitiated?

[@captiantoastytm6436]

He does have, I think, 3 other appearances on toe

[@polymathpark]

John Vervaeke may be the most valuable mind on the planet. His podcast and lecture series awakening from the meaning crisis are both incredibly enlightening

[@daarom3472]

his value is only defined by the relationship you have with him. but you're obviously free to express your personal valuation of his ideas. No need to make any general statements about it.

[@polymathpark]

@@daarom3472 that's what I'm doing... And I said he *may* be. I've listened to many living philosophers and dead, and this one has nuance and open mindedness that is rare in today's living philosophers

[@OusamaLarbi]

​Don't mind the obnoxious commuter above. Vervaeke is doing amazing work and deserves his flowers ​@@polymathpark

[@justinthillens2853]

​@@daarom3472 you understood the assignment lol

[@matthewparlato5626]

​@@polymathpark indeed he is.

[@captiantoastytm6436]

Okay I couldn’t wait till I finished the whole video. A lot of John’s interviews consist of him reiterating the same points(not his fault, people just ask him the same questions). But your interviews with him always draw him to further explain the many layers of reasoning behind his ideas, and every interview is a unique conversation. I greatly appreciate your skill as an interviewer for that.

[@Mikeduffey_]

Agreed

[@HantonSacu]

true

[@Efesus67]

20 minutes in, and this is probably the best Vervaeke interview I've seen ever, simply because Curt is skillfully pushing back. Amazing !

[@williamjmccartan8879]

Looks like you're having a great time Curt as John is such a capable foil, for every investigation of thought you put forward. This has been a real treat Curt, and John, thank again so much for sharing your time and work gentlemen, have a great day and wonderful weekend, peace

[@Len124]

I sense an elephant in the room when John talks about avoiding the pitfalls of increased attention on his work; especially because his area of expertise provides insights on ways to better one’s life, which is inherently fraught and vulnerable to “guru-ification.” The temptation to speak on topics beyond one’s expertise, parasocial relationships leading to a cult of personality, and the risk of audience capture (finding a niche-and lucrative-audience that wants particular opinions reinforced by telling them what they want to hear to the detriment of one’s own credibility) all bring to mind another academic from the University of Toronto who speaks on similar topics. So far, John seems much better at restricting his output to his own wheelhouse, much less of a contrarian for its own sake, less close-minded, and more cognizant of the risks of his position.

[@Crytoma]

Yep

[@MaidenMonster]

In another word, wiser.

[@HantonSacu]

​@@MaidenMonsterthat's the gist but @Len124 that was beautifuly said 👏

[@Robb3348]

wow what a perceptive guy you must be! awesome, man!

[@MaidenMonster]

My favorite TOE episodes have been with Vervaeke. What world enlarging conversations, and such great questions and answers.

[@williamjmccartan8879]

This is going on at the same time as Gregg Henriques is doing a podcast as well and I am a fan of both of these gentlemen, I'll catch up with Gregg later, thank you both John, and Curt for sharing your time and work, peace

[@TheoriesofEverything]

See you later, Gregg! :P

[@williamjmccartan8879]

@@TheoriesofEverything Still a huge fan of Gregg and his work though Curt, ever since his first conversations with John, he took pride in his practice and was/is a highly recognized and respected scientist, and I know you appreciate him as well Curt, just letting you know it actually was a hard choice, thank you for sharing your time and work brother, peace

[@Mrhollowdadon]

Curt’s ability to go deep and explore the mind’s of the world’s greatest thinkers is what makes his podcast truly unique and special ❤

[@all4one5]

Very intriguing. I like this mixture of secular mathematics and spiritual metaphysics of the channel

[@Tino_Tino_Tino]

Thank you for this interview. I think John Vervaeke is one of the most important voices in modernity; I'm also thankful that he only seemed to mature from his rising. Great job 👍.

[@daarom3472]

I've listened to a lot of his videos, including on this podcast, but I still don't get what his main thesis is. Yes things have relations and these are important. Maybe relations come before the things themselves, but how would we know? And why would it even matter? What is the evidence brought forward for this?

[@matthewparlato5626]

​@@daarom3472he's the most important mind today. Read Fillers "Heidegger, Neoplatonism, and History of Being: Relationality as Ontological Ground" It's a masterpiece and recapitulates JVs position in depth.

[@liminally-spacious]

Curt and John in person 🔥🙏

[@bretmccormick1912]

I'm probably over simplifying but it seems to me, as I listen, that accepting there are no 'things' only 'processes' gets to the heart of what is being said. Perhaps I need to listen to this a few more times. Bur thanks for the very stimulating programming.

[@Len124]

Based on your phrasing, you may already be familiar with Alfred North Whitehead's "Process Philosophy," but if you haven't you should check it out. Quite dense and unappealing in its original, at least IMO, but there's plenty of commentary on it that I found much more digestible. Even setting his work aside though, the deeper we delve into the heart of matter, the less it conforms to past centuries' naive conception of it as static, "stuff-like" bits and the more it appears to be composed of events in process.

[@ThinkingTogetherPodcast]

This might be the best Vervaeke interview I know of, great job!!

[@grantlawrence611]

This gentleman has a profound understanding.

[@user-cg3tx8zv1h]

A superbly conducted interview. It was a delight to listen to.. This surpasses the online interviews...

[@ourblessedtribe9284]

Agreed

[@djazz393]

I really enjoyed when you pressed him on how an instrumentalist/pragmatist would respond to his claim about intelligibility and the real. I don’t see enough podcasters feature the more instrumentalist (and constructive empiricist) voices, of which I’m extremely sympathetic. Would love to see you get Bas van Fraassen (the constructive empiricist 🐐) on the podcast and interview him about anti realism and theology

[@PrimitiveArchery6]

This conversation is on the edge of my cognitive processing power.

[@bretmccormick1912]

I cannot remember any other video that I found so fascinating and compelling. I have listened to this 4 times and will continue listening.

[@helkias2886]

Absolutely phenomenal talk. Enjoyed it from the first to last minute, thank you Curt for setting this up!

[@networkimprov]

Re "jump back to naive Vervaeke..." I laughed aloud! This was unexpectedly engaging and boggling at the same time, from the first moment :)

[@Mystery_G]

It is conversations like this that I have come to deeply believe are witnessable markers in time in which humanity is evolving. My sincerest thanks to both Curt and John, and all connected with a genuine attempt at unfolding ways of knowing.

[@joshcohen777]

I love the way you two courageously approach such challenging intellectual territories. Beyond the content, it’s truly a blessing to see such an honorable display of the grappling of dialogos. I commend you both and appreciate your generosity for making such invaluable pedagogical content freely available. Kudos, my friends!

[@zacharyjones7616]

You are getting so good at interviewing. Wow.

[@ourblessedtribe9284]

agreed. remarkable

[@Lucasvoz]

God I love these Canadians.

[@matthewparlato5626]

Yes Lucas..."the Canadian Phenomenon" we call it here in TLC....I asked a Canadian welder about it once. His answer was funny... He said "The Deathly Cold Winters afford men to ponder deeply" lol

[@ashleyalicecullen]

I appreciate this discourse. Please keep em coming. 🙏

[@InterfaceGuhy]

Great dialogos, gentlemen! I would love to join in one day

[@zipperpillow]

Juicey brew, lads. You've got me hanging on every word.

[@gymcel565]

Incredibly stimulating conversation. Thank you to both of you.

[@theoryofevery0ne]

12 minutes in & I am already loving this talk.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Wonderful

[@CSOne_]

Thanks, Curt!

[@ArtemZen]

One of the best Vervaeke interviews i’ve heard Bravo Curt 🙏

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Wow, I’m so glad!

[@raminnaserioskouie655]

One of the best if not the best episode of TOE. I have soooo much respect for you John Vervaeke. You said whatever I believe in and think about with the most appropriate words. Thanks you both for this amazing episode.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad you enjoyed this, man.

[@rckindkitty]

To say that this is excellent content is understating the case. Thank you both for an excellent discussion, gentlemen.

[@trevconn123]

Such a joy to see a channel with a strong emphasis in physics maintain its philosophical roots…. SUCH a special channel.

[@eqapo]

1:14:57 thank you curt for probing johns "strange memory called the self." He says that a lot and it seems thick, but nobody pursues it because by the time you get to the 4th P, all the other ones were sufficiently convincing but demanding of work lol

[@categoryerror7]

Wonderful job Curt. We’ve got lots of great interviews from John where he discusses the meaning crisis, this is a meaty philosophical conversation which is a real treat.

[@Afrika_Percussie]

Fantastic dialogue. Thank you! P.S. The phrase "I don't believe in the same god you dont believe in," is from Piaget, perfectly in line with his investigations in systematic error.

[@FortYeah]

It is always a pleasure to listen to both of you but together, it really goes somewhere else. Thank you.

[@Tripp111]

You can not [have] an object without relations. This is self-evident.

[@t33can]

Why? Like, honestly, what's the contradiction?

[@pookz3067]

@@t33canit really depends on how you define relations. For example, if your meta language is math you can talk about them separately, but even in math the foundations you just accept as formal. Foundations that don’t end at just accepting certain formal relations have never been formulated to adequate rigor imo. And formal systems are all about relations between what could be dummy symbols (only the number of unique symbols matters, not what the symbols actually are. The relations you define between symbols is otoh the core of the formal system). If you are not using mathematical descriptions, then what other system are we using to discuss objects? Because that will change the answer. As far as I can tell, any way of specifying an object has implicit relations. You can work in a system where you don’t call those relations, but that’s it. Like if you give your definition of object I’ll point out how there are implicit relations for all objects satisfying your definition.

[@Tripp111]

Object implies something other than self, fundamentally. Relationship.

[@wheatley9601]

​​@@t33canuse your brain. We live in a *uni*-verse

[@erlinae1]

Simply profound. Blessings eternally to you both.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thank you kindly

[@ourblessedtribe9284]

Masterful from you both. Thank you both.

[@lipto722]

I appreciate Curt's unabridged confidence in prominently displaying his unshoed nature, with his big TOE pointing directly at the audience for the vast portion of this video, as if to engage in observational paradoxical dialogos with the viewer; observing the observer observing. TOE never ceases to one up itself!

[@Gwyll_Arboghast]

this might be the best conversation yet for both of them.

[@bigguy7777]

i've been on the vervaeke rabbit hole for a while and this interview is very refreshing, engaging his ideas from angles I haven't thought of before. good stuff :-)

[@bigguy7777]

omg there's even a cat in play this is awesome

[@cryoshakespeare4465]

Wow, the part at 1:44:40 where he speaks of his personal relation to this, man, felt that in my heart. This was an awesome conversation, I love how dialogical it was! Thank you both :)

[@matthewparlato5626]

Amen amen amen...JV is my hero. What a man a soul an intellect. Im blessed to have found him

[@mtn7224]

This was exceptionally good. Thank you.

[@ezreality]

I have something money can't buy: contentment. We offer to teach anyone the Truth about Life, the only thing that brings true contentment. This Truth answers life's three fundamental questions: Where did I come from? Who and what am I? Where am I going? The Old Philosopher

[@samdanner6806]

Second!!! Sam Danner Austin Texas

[@noself7889]

This is the way to do a podcast live in the same room. Maybe someday you can do it Joe Rogan style with your own podcast set up. Curt, you have Managed to create the best philosophy, and science podcast on KZbin ☸️☯️🕉️☦️

[@alexanderjenkins7929]

Verveke would be a great co-host in a "great toe unravelling" - where the intention is to get to the presuppositions and assumptions of various ToEs

[@mcnallyaar]

10/10 Best of the Best of the Internet

[@FaanaMusic]

PLEASE, bring Forrest Landry on. He has achieved tremendous metaphysical clarity in terms of how relationships are fundamental and he might be able to help you (and all of us) understand this on a deeper more precise (even mathematical) level. 🙏

[@BoRisMc]

Curt is like a gifted, math olimpics winning, Child’s play’s-Chucky scary smart. Damn!

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

He seems to know philosophy quite technically eh?? Amazing.

[@BoRisMc]

@@JohnnyTwoFingers talk about a fast learner. The man is like a heavy duty, information shop-vac. Amazing indeed

[@rsandy4077]

In Protestant calvinist seminaries, the study of God gleans from Thomas and Agustine and the escolastics such as Turrentin, but it is rooted in neoplatonic christian thought from the early fathers.

[@rtizzi]

Pretty clear distinction in approach and self awareness between Vervaeke and his former Toronto "colleague", Jordan Peterson, when it comes to being careful not to be ideologically/politically gripped and audience captured.

[@rsandy4077]

God has to become a subject to have a relation with him. It doesn’t mean that he is just a subject, he can still be a spirit of relation that permeates everything if u wish.

[@Slaman5150]

Oh, and thank you! Awesome!!

[@Slaman5150]

I feel like it's been so long since I have seen a one on one conversation on this channel!?

[@TheoriesofEverything]

kzbin.info/aero/PLZ7ikzmc6zlN6E8KrxcYCWQIHg2tfkqvR there are plenty! Browse through here. kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIbTaqtqabNmq6c Neil Turok and kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJ3OnXRsn9iGbqM Tim Palmer to name a couple :)

[@jasonmitchell5219]

The naïve Vervaeke 'thought experiment' comment was funny and understandable cos it's difficult to fully understand this claim that reality is fundamentally relational without having undergone the, or similar, biographical intellectual trajectory of John.

[@2410manchester]

Grace keeps us from despair and simultaneously from hubristic inflation bc it is a gift so that we can’t boast

[@James-ll3jb]

CJ. In category theory, "an object is specified by the totality of its relations, uniquely. So that is to say if you were to give me the relations I could give you the object; if you give me the object I can give you the relations, but there is a dual relationship there, so you could speak about the object or you could speak about the relations. And this is why in category theory, you have a relation that's defined from one place to another. It's called morphisms. So whenever you're saying you have a relation but you're saying, well, relations are fundamental, relations are defined in terms of their objects. But you can have objects without relations." JV. "You can? How?" CJ. "so you just have an obhect, but you don't specify its relations." JV. "Give me an example of an object." CJ. "Like a real object, or an abstract object." JV. "Either one." CJ. "So you just have a set." JV. "A 'set' of things which is an inherently relational entity." CJ. "Like an empty set." JV. "An empty of things. So you've got a relationship because emptiness is not a thing, it's pointing to a relationship between existence and a lack thereof. The point I'm going to make is that every time you try and explain something you're going to fall back into intelligibility and then intelligibility is a system of relations of identity and difference....And what substance is is an identity relation that has no relation of difference. And the point, the problem with that is that you can't get relation out of that. ... I have two objects: where's the relation? Does it belong to this object? Well no because then it could have the relation without the other object. Does it belong to this [other] one? Well, no! It emerges between them, how? What does it emerge from? What does that mean? Do they have sort of potential relationality within them? Well how can that be because they exist independent? Like this is Filler's extended argument. You can't get relations out of objects. You always, always, always have identity and difference. Intelligibility and indeterminacy bound up together. ... ...If you put any thing into any kind of category you're giving it a relation. Even if you pick out an "x" there you're giving it a relation to places where it is not....(15:05) And salience is a relation: it is how things stand out against a background. CJ. Would you say that there's a possible world of a single electron? JV. Well, it wouldn't be a universe. It would be nothing other than the electron. And of course there'd be no way of knowing it as an electron. CJ. Yes there'd be no way of us knowing it is an electron, I agree because we're not a part of that. JV. There'd be no way of anything knowing it in principle. So how can I conceive of something that is in principle unknowable? CJ. You would say that that's not a possible world. JV. I think what you're doing is you're imagining relations of time and space in which there's a single thing floating around. CJ. Sure. JV. But that's not what you're positing. You're positing something that bears no temporal space- CJ. -okay, no, let's say, no, you need space and time to specify the electron. Then you've got that the electron. JV. Then you need space and time to specify the electron. Then you've got that (the electron) - is it totally and completely when it's in one space and place? Or is it-it can move around? CJ. It can move around. JV. Okay, now it's inherently relational. CJ. This is step one. Now let's remove the electron and just talk about space and time. JV. Right. CJ. Can there be a universe, a possible universe of space and time? Empty. JV. Do you think spsce and time are objects? CJ. I'm asking you. JV. Okay. Fair enough. CJ. I wouldn't even use the word 'object'. Because then we'd have to define "object." JV. I think time and space are exactly fundamental relities that are fundamentally relational that we get into endless paradox when we try to capture them in subject/predicate logic. And we try to think of them as if they are substances that bear properties. And that's how we get Zeno's paradoxes and we get all these other paradoxes because they are inherently relational. CJ. Ok: please help me understand what relation is. (17:30) JV. 'Relation', so, there's a sense in which I can't specify in terms of anything other than relation if my, without falling into performative contradiction because I'm arguing that it's the ultimate thing, ("thing," right?). But what I mean is that by which you can find something intelligible. CJ. So objects and relations are not dual to one another: Objects depend on relations in a way that relations don't depend on objects. JV. I think it's the case that ... objects are dependent on relations, but that doesn't mean that they don't, they...if you think of objects as a way in which relations are altering how they are related to themselves, (which is getting into tricky language), then it's the case that objects are a way in which relations are transformed or changed, but the objects still ultimately depend on the relations, yes. CJ. Do you believe reductionists conflate existence, fundamentality, and realness, or just realness and fundamentality, or neither? JV. I think there is a conflation in reductionism between ... I think there's a performative contradiction in reductionism in that there's an implicit presupposition of the binding of the irremovable relation, the non-logical binding and identity between intelligibility and realness without including intelligibility within the definition or the understanding of realness. And so you get a notion of fundamentality which is supposed to ultimately give you a sense of, it serves as an explanatory base for everything else, but you haven't properly included intelligibility in your model of reality. And that is how you get into a deep performative contradiction. CJ. Please explain to me what intelligibility is. (19:38) JV. Intelligibility is how you can understand things such that knowledge about them is possible. So for example, one of the things that's wrong with a lot of reductionism is that it takes, it uses what I call standard naturalism, which is we derive our ontology from our scientific frameworks, right? So our ontology has to be what is derivable from our fundamental physics. Perhaps you loosen that up a bit on fundamental physics and chemistry and biology and whatever, but that's not relevant to my argument. But notice what's not being accounted for there, but which is being presupposed. Well, you know what is being presupposed? Scientists doing science. And what do the scientists need to do science? Well, there has to be real information. There has to be real patterns. There has to be real measurement. There has to be real debate. There has to be real criticism. There has to be real meaning. Thefe has to be real truth. There has to be real rationality. And then, where is that in your fundamental ontology? It's not. But, if you don't have those things, you can't actually explain how you have the knowledge you have. You just, the knowkedge us hanging out here, in some nebulous non-ontological space. Or sometimes you just put it dualistically into the mind. And then you have a horrible ontology, right? It's just there. CJ. And this would be the case for an instrumentalist, or a pragmatist? JV....If it's the case they're not talking about anything real, their ontology is not going to be reductionist, right? (21:25)

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

24:47 - Depends on reference frame, imo.

[@n8works]

Wow! This is going to be good. 🙏

[@kennycommentsofficial]

Kurt, on your discussion of Yoneda’s lemma, consider that an object categorically IS its identity morphism. Category theory is really a language of morphisms and their compositions, and we can formally derive objects by considering which morphisms compose trivially. In some sense that the Yoneda perspective is baked into the setup of a category as axioms for composition. The keyword here is “essentially algebraic theory”. For your empty set example, note that this is the set defined by universal property (of morphisms) of being initial (for any “locally trivial composition/object” there is a morphisms from the emptyset (empty map) which commutes either any other morphism.

[@mostlynotworking4112]

Remember embody. There is no agency. We want what’s best for you

[@matthewparlato5626]

Mnw!!!!!!

[@Jacob011]

This is the most penetrative dissection of John Vervaeke 😮

[@gregg.2551]

Hey, Kurt 👋🏻. Are these "shorts" helping or hurting the channel? Personally, I find them annoying, but I'm willing to concede my bias if it's helping your numbers. You're smarter than me, so I have to believe they are despite the appearance of the opposite. At a minimum, would a separate "shorts" tab not be useful as opposed to having to endlessly scroll to find a full-length video?

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Easiest way to find the full lengths is here kzbin.info/aero/PLZ7ikzmc6zlN6E8KrxcYCWQIHg2tfkqvR . KZbin's interface isn't great at ensuring shorts are separate in a feed from videos. That's by design on their part but hopefully that changes. The clips / shorts do drive plenty of interest toward the full episodes, as many (most?) are intimidated by the duration, consume the teaser clips, and then realize they want the full dinner. - Curt

[@gregg.2551]

@@TheoriesofEverything I'm an idiot. I was actually viewing via the app on firestick, and for some reason, it doesn't provide content tabs whatsoever. It's sorted via mobile 👍🏻

[@m.thousands1848]

Vervaeke is incredibly intelligent. I’m elated he’s awake to the fact there is a meaning crisis and he’s working towards solving it and not too scientific to use spiritual disciplines, however he’s clearly not wiling to draw on Christianity and most likely will never concede to an intelligent creator. He’s not an atheist but still too rational to accept the meta truth of the religion of the West.

[@kevinquinnkelly]

He draws quite a bit from Christianity. Eriugena, Cusa, and Kierkegaard are all central figures in his After Socrates series. He has said many times that he prefers Christian Neoplatonism to non-Christian because they bring in agapic love.

[@HantonSacu]

uh, intelligent creator, so cartesian

[@pookz3067]

Note that at the foundations of mathematics, everything is formal. We can believe it all points to something platonic, but afaik the most fleshed out foundations atm stop at formal definitions. Going below that takes a lot of epistemological work (i personally believe logic isn't the foundation, and that logic is actually just an extremely robust empirical model . In the formal world, the empty set is just a dummy symbol allowable in the set theory language. Everything about it that makes it the empty set is captured by the property that “X is an element of the empty set” is false, and we also get for free the property that “the empty set is a subset of X” is true for all X. If not posited that way, the empty set is usually defined using the specification axioms. But all that’s doing is using an axiom to construct an allowable set in your formal language, and that set happens to satisfy the above properly, also all just tests of weather certain sentences are allowed or not. All of these cases are defining “some object” in terms of its relations. Just because these relations are not the morphisms in our category doesn’t mean the objects in our category are not themselves actually defined by relations. At the very foundations of math and even first order logic, objects are dummy symbols defined by how they can be combined with other symbols. Even with the electron example, do we really know what an electron is outside of how it interacts? I can imagine an electron in the abstract with nothing to interact with, but my understanding in my imagination is completely tied to the fact that it can have those interactions. Otherwise isn’t it just kind of abstract mystery substance without properties? I kind of believe philosophically in some sort of nondualism with integration between what the object and process/relation is, like they’re different shadows cast by some one object I can’t conceive of. And that all specific properties of objects come from putting boxes around and observing relations of parts of this nondual reality.

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

What a great video, way too short!

[@matthewparlato5626]

55:11 was adorable....J Pageau, the time-traveling, anceint church father. Amen And a shout to PVK!!!!!

[@Deserrto]

Pray for John Vervaeke

[@neptunium7121]

28:11 - 28:27 David Lynch is almost the only one who can create that feeling within a movie/series.

[@captiantoastytm6436]

Does anyone know when the gospel seminar will be available online?

[@vanessa1569]

Yeah, I didn’t understand any of this and I did want to. Glad others did 👍

[@shredderSupreme91]

lol let’s say God truly exists in one capacity or another. Image how absolutely HILARIOUS it’d be for Him whenever some human comes up with their reason for why He doesn’t exist, while literally existing inside of His reality while having no power whatsoever.

[@dddono]

I think our nervous system is tied to these understandings too. So we touch in English for example.

[@ourblessedtribe9284]

32:00 to 32:30 i need to figure out how this fits in JVs system because I dont understand

[@TimCCambridge]

~ Hi, thank you both for this. Having a dialogos with a " spirit ", a wise guide? Not having a relationship with... the universe or the eternal... now that would be a big mistake...

[@RickDelmonico]

Consensus is useful for identifying the real but truth can be harder to nail down. The qualities that truth requires can be numerous and consensus may or may not be one of them.

[@alexanderjenkins7929]

Could the "5th P" be a kind of necessary a priori ontological truth where "memory" is substituted for a kind of "fundamental existence"? It would then be "knowable" to cognition in the way cognition and all other Ps are derrived from the "5th P" truth(s)

[@funobruso]

The "Do you pray?" at 1:07:16 by Curt was excellent ahahahahah

[@tim1883]

Is there a set that contains all sets, including itself? Or does that set plus itself continue to keep producing a new set that is not contained in the previous set?. I never laid awake about that one.

[@ryanashfyre464]

There's no need to even go down that rabbit hole. Relations don't exist absent a mind in which to hold the concept of relations. There's no such thing as an ontologically real relation. That's pure abstraction.

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

Just have a pointer to the set itself within the elements. Easy peasy.

[@RickDelmonico]

Behavior is a separate category from stuff and relationship. Relationship is like potential energy, behavior is like kinetic energy. To have infinite anything, you need infinite time. The unification of process? You don't get a rich environment from unification, there are many forces at play, many behaviors and many purposes. It is either heading towards a goal or a death. Intelligibility is a map. Indeterminacy is a dynamic holofractal.

[@Preciouspink]

What does 1:42:51 metanoeutic mean.I am still trying to get my head around Neoplatonism.

[@ourblessedtribe9284]

Just think a completely perspective changing experience. Like repentance

[@RickDelmonico]

The deep machinery of cognition is like a map, it represents and presents. The map must be tuned to value in the environment and the soundness of the map is in its utility.

[@neptunium7121]

"...Only sentience is understood within sentience..."

[@jcruz8323]

First!

[@matthewparlato5626]

When did the cat find JVs lap!?!?!? 🤣 🤣 😅😂 Edit* 1:00:09

[@missh1774]

Maybe you mean nontransitive rather than empty set (13:12)? Like arrive or died.

[@apatinkin]

The Hebrew word for dialog is שיח 'siach'; a word that is contained in the word משיח 'Messiah'.

[@RickDelmonico]

The natural realm is not as exhaustive in the sense of the catalog of possibilities. There are many constraints, see the fine tuning problem. We get a much larger set of behaviors when we consider unnatural possibility. Interpretation moves through the catalogs without settling in any particular bucket much more frequently than we would like to admit.

[@vagabondcaleb8915]

The landscape is not the map,,,,but the landscape is contained in the map, and the map is contained in the landscape.

[@pantherstealth1645]

yay John!

[@gloriaharbin1131]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@stvbrsn]

32:05 “I don’t think the question is ‘can things exist outside of sentience?’ Because that presupposes the possibility of a standpoint you can take.” I’ll answer that by channeling a little Alan Watts. A “thing” is no different than a “think.” They’re the same word.

[@vagabondcaleb8915]

Contradictory and transcending categorization appear identical.

[@PatrickODowd702]

🤯