Could the Orthodox Church Transform Your Life?

When we depart from tradition... what is it that we leave behind?
This conversation is structured around the idea that the Eastern Orthodox church has multiple unique ideas, resources, and practices that could help create solutions for many of the symptoms of the meaning crisis that continue to show up in the world.
Bishop Maximus (Marretta) is the Titular Bishop of Pelagonia, under the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece. He does missionary work in Latin America and Africa; and is the Superior of the Hermitage of St. Ignatius, a Spanish-speaking Orthodox monastery on a mountain by Santa Cruz Naranjo, Guatemala. He also gives classes and lectures in philosophy, theology, history, and languages at St. Photios Orthodox Theological Seminary in Etna, California.
Website: monasterioortodoxo.org
PayPal: paypal.me/BishopMaximus

[@ethanb2554]

We need to hear him finish on theurgy, this is very important, as well as the divergence on rationalism, metaphysics, and intellectualism. Please don't stop talking to Bishop Maximus. Thank you John.

[@Ac-ip5hd]

Yes, especially as he called it magic and said not all ritual is correct.

[@avak19808]

Bishop Maximus has such a solid poker face. What a guy.

[@shivabreathes]

He does!

[@brambes1804]

I don’t know if it is a poker face or it is really him not being lets say influenced by the interactions.

[@veilofreality]

@@brambes1804 isn't it basically the same thing?

[@brambes1804]

@@veilofreality I don’t know, English isn’t my first language so maybe I’m missing something in the definition of poker face. Poker face seems to me like someone is trying to not show ones emotion. The bishop seems not to try most of the time, so it goes deeper than that.

[@TommyRushing]

This appears to be a feature of orthodoxy.

[@mcardillo77]

I’m not versed enough or smart enough to understand all of the language and reference to platonism. In spite of that I somehow get the just of it and it strangely causes tears of joy in listening. It affirms that my deepest times of relevance realization, my apprehension of Devine love and beauty is not a delusion.

[@davidgreenwood5602]

The Bishop exudes integrity!

[@GottaFly]

AMAZINGLY helpful - as a convert from an academic protestant group, with a philosophical bent, for 35+ years I've being trying to figure out what liturgy was about - the discussion on how symbolism works over discursive reasoning was sooooo very helpful. I'd pay $1,000 to hear each of these discussions. Please keep coming back B. Maximos. So very few speak our language and we need all the help we can get! I'd be happy to pay to upgrade the internet connection!

[@shivabreathes]

Wow. Glad it was so helpful to you.

[@hobbsmatt]

Fantastic conversation again. I’m a fan of John’s work, but I really can’t get enough of discussions about the relationship/inter-play/overlap with orthodox theology, as a newcomer to Orthodoxy myself. I would be happy to listen to a new conversation between these two gentlemen once a week, so take this as an emphatic vote for a part 3!

[@EamonBurke]

What is interesting, is that if you find cradle Orthodox, they have a hard time articulating any of this. Over time, it becomes so totalizing that is easier to see the weirdness of the outside. That to me is a major hallmark of the Truth.

[@Xaloxulu]

I see the conversation between neoplatonism and christianity wonderfully on display here also exemplified in Simone Weil, reminding me of her many quotes concerning attention and love (e.g. Those minds whose attention and love are turned towards that reality are the sole intermediary through which good can descend from there and come among men). I was left wondering what the zen equivalent to nous would be. Perhaps 心 (as used by Bodhidharma in Outline of practice and Bloodstream sermon for example) which means heart, center, intelligence... but is often translated simply as mind. Thank you bishop Maximus and professor Vervaeke 🙏

[@zzzaaayyynnn]

These conversations are very enlightening, and I look foward to more between John and Bishiop Maximus!

[@annawray2220]

Can’t wait for the next session, these are the best talks I’ve heard from JV

[@gregorywitcher5618]

Master, Bless! So glad to see you two in Dialogos. Thank you for all you are and do, Dr. Vervaeke.

[@orthodoxboomergrandma3561]

I found both conversations today! I’m ecstatic to listen to these wonderful talks. I converted to EO from being in RC from birth, then a Hindu cult, then I met Christ! Then I stumbled around in the many forms of Protestantism and finally Roman Catholicism again until 2013. Then I found Holy Orthodoxy which has helped me finally make progress towards Theosis through purification, illumination in baptism, and hopefully, before I die, I will taste Union! Ongoing continual Repentance with tears is a gift God gave me to keep me on the path. Christ has forgiven me for so many horrible sins, including murder with one abortion, and I love Him! I depend on the Eucharist to stay alive in Christ. Confession and absolution are soooo healing. Hesychastic Noetic prayer is the real deal and is our birth right! Every can say the Jesus Prayer. This is good, beautiful and true. Thank you both John and Bishop Maximus. I’ve literally been praying for John to speak to someone like the Bishop for at least two years. Thank you God.

[@michaelparsons3007]

I will never get enough of God’s Energies!

[@davidgreenwood5602]

I love the way John thinks on his feet.

[@JackTimothy]

His Grace Bishop Maximus is a wealth of knowledge.

[@__Mr--Heavy__]

The term "nous" and it's varied translations and interpretations by modern Orthodox writers, coupled with it's absolute centrality in the Orthodox Tradition in regard to prayer and watchfulness, has resulted in an ongoing journey of attempted definitions and clarifications for the past 10+ years. I had landed on "mind" as the closest single word definition (drawing largely on the glossary entry and notes at the end of Monastic Wisdom), but Bishop Maximus' suggestion of "consciousness" and his subsequent framing and clarification of the term was the single best, most helpful thing I've heard or read specifically on the topic of how modern English speaking people should understand the term nous. So thank you very much for that. And of course the accompanying framing of logos and attention etc etc was of great value as well. I hope you continue this conversation. Thanks to both of you and may God bless you for your efforts.

[@JordanGreenhall]

I would like to hear more about Nous in relationship to Consciousness. I feel like this is a puzzle piece to connect many things together.

[@Orthodoxi]

The nous which is darkened before salvation with Jesus Christ starts to be purified the moment one steps into the Orthodox Church in Divine Liturgy. If your approach is as a small child open and willing, God as Logos/Holy Spirit arrives to greet you. Adopting you and preparing your path through the Church body to become one with His body. It is only understood through the process. In a procession after the pattern already laid down for each of us who choose to enter. It is in the mystery. Go see for yourself!

[@orthodoxboomergrandma3561]

@@Orthodoxi yes!!! Hi!

[@abbemussa]

I logged in to youtube hoping to find THIS conversation. Thanks be to God!

[@cedcob]

I'd love to hear the bishop do a long form presentation using the "Vervaekean vernacular" explaining the differences between Neo-platonism and its evolution into Christian Neo-platonism into eastern Orthodoxy. Then make the case that the orthodox church has the practices to bring about a meaningful life. Like a multi hour, structured talk. Anyone else think this would be most valuable?

[@shari6063]

I think this would be great but it would difficult to not have it perceived as polemics. Which would be more harmful than good. But maybe not.

[@Joeonline26]

He's a bishop. Somehow I doubt he has time to give multi hour, structured talks outside of his current role and duties

[@zzzaaayyynnn]

It would be interesting to see Bishop Maximus engaged with others in the Vervaeke circle.

[@lucioramos4347]

Search for Saint Photios Orthodox Seminary School, he gives lectures there.

[@berlingolingoful]

More Bishop Maximus!💯

[@dionysis_]

These conversations are very interesting and the Bishop is surprisingly clear considering the complexity of these matters.

[@ramyafennell4615]

I can understand John's enthusiasm...he is finding so many matches with his work. Good that Bishop Maximus stays steady. This is also a revealing moment for me...I'm holding my breath too... can it be true Christianity can come so close to the universal truth of non duality. Even of Advaita or Visishtadvaita Vedanta.

[@Selderij]

What makes you certain of nondualism being the truth? I find focusing on nonduality to be more of a pedagogical technique than any unequivocal final truth arising from a place of equilibrium and "being already there".

[@gettingtogive]

Really beautiful! Thank you Bishop and John 🙏

[@HolyDash]

Please please please keep this conversation going. This is nourishing food

[@petarmilojkovic8973]

The amount of care and respect with which John Vervaeke approaches these conversations is truly astonishing. Doctor, I thank you for your hard work and continued interest in Holy Orthodoxy.

[@littledidtheyknow4332]

Thank you. More of this please. Bringing in a lot of clarity.

[@leedufour]

Thanks Bishop Maximus and John!

[@michealwalli7324]

the last one was great! I'm excited for this one

[@aiyanenband9638]

Great convo guys!

[@christoffersjogrentrombone3913]

Fantastic conversation! Realy helpful. Thank you both!!

[@tigerag29607]

Brilliant discussion... Deffinately crave more of this material.

[@Bartisim0]

This is such a crucial conversation.

[@climbingmt.sophia]

Wonderful!

[@caioalves3826]

Thank you for all of your discussions! It greatly enhanced my current thoughts

[@fbalvim]

This was great return to that!

[@eyesee9715]

Orthodox spiritual practice (hesychasm) involves the purification of the nous (from the passions....or perhaps the redirection of misguided, disordered passions) and the co-functioning of nous with the heart, the sinking of nous into the depths of heart. This emphasis on nous-in-heart is part of what distinguishes it from nous-dominated spiritualities (Platonic, Hindu, Buddhist, Sufi, etc). The person is not the ego as those spiritualities tend to see it. Greek Orthodox Christian theology calls the person hypostasis,, a uniqueness, otherness, that cannot be erased, yet whose life is communion with others. Otherness makes possible agape (love) as (an ekstatic) communing of persons. It is a union in which there is no separation, and no merging. Heart (deeper than nous) enters the spiritual path with self-abnegation, self-denial, self-ruin, self-emptying. In the heart we receive Christ's Spirit, and his Holy Spirit energizes our natural capacity for agape, by our cooperation/synergeia, for the (ekstatic) sacrifice of love. Christ alone takes agape all the way, through human suffering, death, hell, all the way to resurrection. Eastern Orthodoxy says it is Incarnation, the spiritual coming down to dwell in the human...in Jesus Christ... and his further descent into death and hell then resurrection and ascension and gift of Spirit that enables human divinization/deification/theosis by grace. It is Jesus Christ who brings the nous and heart of God into the nous and heart of humanity. Modern and contemporary Orthodox writers on this include Nicholas Berdyaev, Christos Yannaras, Olivier Clement, Mother Maria Skobtsova, Sophrony Sakharov, Robin Amis, Hierotheos Vlachos, Nikolaos Loudovikos, John Anthony McGuckin, Stephen Muse, etc. (of which the latter four are still living and accessible). Klaus Kenneth speaks about it in his talks, having lived as a Hindu and a Buddhist before turning to Christ after meeting Mother Theresa and then Fr. Sophrony of Essex. Some modern and contemporary hesychasts and saints who have lived this (some of whom have also written of it) include St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Silouan, St. Sophrony, St. Paisios, St. Porphyrios, Mother Gavrielia (who resided in India), Fr. Ephraim, Fr. Amilianos, etc. The answer to the question of this video has been answered in the lives of countless people. That said, so many of us who think of ourselves as being on this sacred path of Christ and his saints -- the way of agape -- have little to show for it in terms of spiritual fruits. Nevertheless, we cling (cleave) to the Savior in faith, trusting in God's great compassion, love and mercy.

[@Ac-ip5hd]

Yes! However i think the understandings of people like St. Paisios and Fr Seraphim Rose on ecumenicists and universalism, along with New Age, Jungian stuff, and the subversion of Catholocism and the West by Neoplatonism after scholasticism, and the chiliasm in John's project and surrounding projects on game B should be discussed, along with the discernment and testing of spirits and use of imagination in prayer. Let alone the outright gnostic paganism of "emergentism" in surrounding projects and John summoning the spirits of philosophers and Hermes in his practices in After Socrates.

[@Ac-ip5hd]

But that aside this OP is a great comment.

[@eyesee9715]

The "rituals" that enable us to participate in the mystery of Christ's gift of love "for the life of the world" are the sacraments and sacramentals (mysterion) of the Church....prayer, scripture, baptism, confession, ordination, marriage, eucharist, etc. A modern writer who is helpful on this is Alexander Schmemann. For more on the person of Christ (Christology) see Maximus's On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ. Others, in addition to Bishop Maximus, who would be good to engage with on the thought of St. Maximus include Fr. Maximos Constas and Jordan Daniel Wood. And on the linkage between Greek philosophy and Eastern Christian theology more generally, John Anthony McGuckin, Andrew Louth, Marcus Plested come to mind among native English speakers.

[@Ac-ip5hd]

@@eyesee9715 Absolutely, the Pappas Institute on YT also has great lectures on the mystagogy and St. Maximos Confessor. I had Schemman recommended to me and haven’t read or know much about Louth. For the basic hands on of those mysteries as well Fr Josiah Trenham has great lectures on the mysteries. St. Cyril’s catechal lectures are also very good. It is important though to point out the core Saints and three heirarchs and way of the church precede any theologian, especially today’s and to be alert to the problems in John’s project and what contemporary saints and Blessed fathers have said about these ecumenicists and The Religion of The Future, which John’s project is to the core.

[@Ac-ip5hd]

@@eyesee9715 St Maximos can be read over and over again too. Always something new to see in a mystery.

[@ivanengel8887]

The Orthodox Church really helped me changed my life. I suggest you revisit your take on "Mino's paradox", because the way we understand grace is that perception is itself miraculous. Modernity confuses gnosis with techne, but if you truly know something, your knowledge isn't power, but the proper use of that power, it's not just remembering how to operate, but it's a virtue. That gnosis is given by grace, and though human beings know by remembering grace, that grace which truly is within human beings, and which is a proper part of their nature, is never fully solidified in this realm. So in that sense, we do not get to re-appropriate the virtues for ourselves. It is proud and forgets that at any time we might again fall. Our nature is weak in that sense, there's no solid being there. I know you're trying to grasp a point of purchase for within. But there's no place like that, even in God.

[@HantonSacu]

damn, didn't expect this so fast 💪

[@adriancioroianu1704]

You should continue also on the ontology of symbol viewed by the eastern othodoxtradition compared to pop or mainstream view because i know symbol plays a huge role for them and also on the difference between neoplatonism (mostly Plotinus) and christian voew on meaning and real because bishop M. mentioned 3 key divergences but did not get the chance to expand on them too much. Anyway great conversation, i think there's much here to realize. Thank you

[@jefflanahan8812]

Brilliant insight from John (among many): "Attention is always an act of caring". We have to isolate what is relevant and not relevant in order to focus attention on one thing and not another, which means we must have a conceptual framework within which we work out what is relevant, based on what we do, and should care about. "Take away this framework of care, you don't have attention." Take away this framework, you have anxiety, because you cannot properly discern what to care about. You do not have a proper understanding of life. You are stricken with dukkha.

[@dorothydeyev9240]

🙏❤️😌 ☦️ Respectfully, thanks so much for these wonder full discussions. Looking forward to hearing more on these not-so-easy-to-grasp concepts, these thoughts about God that fill the mind to the edges, and hopefully can reach all the way to the heart,too. 🙏❤️😌☦️

[@robvalley3612]

Thank you John and Bishop for engaging in these enlightening conversations. I have no background in academia but through your lectures I feel like I've gained a deepened understanding of myself. As you came into the discussion about theurgy and it's function in religion, one being seen as a sorts of belief in magic and the other being seen as a means of a non elitist tool for introducing non intellectual thinkers into the realm of deeper understanding. By this conversation between the two of you I had a kind of an aha moment about the use of rituals. Because when you John spoke of rituals being used as a means to gain access to the realm of deeper understanding it occurred to me that this sounds a lot like placebo, in which the term is widely used in medicine but it got me thinking that placebo is just exactly the definition of a deep belief in something one can not understand but at the same time know it is real. Just as a ritual is something which is hard to understand how it can make you gain a deeper sense of connecting with yourself and a deeper understanding, and it still does. Therefore I came to my own conclusion that I feel placebo is something to be implemented into the discussion of religion and deeper understanding of the self outside the realm of medicine. Is there another word for placebo when it comes to religion and philosophy? Kind regards Rob

[@robvalley3612]

If my first statement was a bit unclear, I'll try to clarify it now when I have wrapped my own head around it a bit more. This was just my connection of how theurgia is for the nouse what placebo is to your health. When human rational reasoning can't get you to a deeper understanding and connection with your true self or what some might call a connection to God or a higher power. Theurgia is that placebo pill which is a physical thing that could help you into a state of deeper connection just as when regular medicine might not be able to cure a particular disease placebo medicine might. With both placebo and theurgia pertaining to a person's deep trust in its abilities to work.

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

So excited. Glad this conversation is happening

[@motiveinmotivation383]

Consciousness, your understanding of the relationship you have with nature, environment, the things you are alive with. As everything is alive depending on the level of analysis you are willing to take

[@robertgray9599]

Proclus has a model of the person that points to reason and nous as distinct and puts nous as more beautiful in the view. I think of Odysseus' cleverness and Socrates' wisdom as easy ways to imagine them in relatable figures. Old and new testament figure embody these distinctions in various ways as well. I'd want both and rely on Sophia and phronesis to apply them justly as life presents itself to us in familiar and surprising ways. Awesome talk, thanks for sharing l! 🙏❤️😀

[@grailcountry]

35:45 For many of the Church Fathers nous is also connected to heart and is not unlike the Hebrew word lev what can be understood as both mind and heart. This points us directly toward just how interwoven knowing, person, love (agape) and attention are.

[@bayreuth79]

The Orthodox misunderstand Scholasticism. It is not a form of rationalism. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest scholastic, writes that we cannot know what the essence of God is; we can only know him through his effects. Aquinas unquestionably embraced apophaticism. It was Duns Scotus who said that we cannot love a negation and he went on to argue from the univocity of being. However, Scotus is an exception. Aquinas held that we can know God through his effects but only by way of analogy and that we do not know what God is in himself. Herbert McCabe, the great Dominican scholar of Aquinas, said that Aquinas was the most "agnostic" of all theologians, by which he meant agnostic as to the essence of God.

[@leondbleondb]

Isn't this why the Christians have Christ to get to know? Sort of like a reflection of that essence of the Father.

[@bayreuth79]

@@leondbleondb Sure- but Christ reveals God as human, not as God per se.

[@leondbleondb]

@@bayreuth79 This came to mind, Colossians 2:9 "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form"

[@_ARCATEC_]

"Reciprocal relationship of Care and Attention. Using Intellidoscope we formulate the expression: •X ( zc Rq(A ) ZC ( a)Qr zc) Y• This expression represents the reciprocal relationship of care and attention in clear and intuitive way, allowing us to reason about this complex system.

[@davidgreenwood5602]

Two very bright blokes.

[@rigelthurston]

This is so good! I found myself yelling at my screen, “noooo” whenever the bishop cut out because it happened at some of the most crucial points. Can you make a transcript of this conversation, where the bishop fills in the parts that are missing? Your questions and clarifications are incredibly useful, speaking as an Orrhidox Christian.

[@youssefsammouh501]

So soon? What did I do to earn this!

[@naikhanomtom7552]

Christ is risen ☦️

[@paveli1181]

Cosmology is essential for meaning.

[@PeterIntrovert]

And meaning is essential for cosmology. ;)

[@paveli1181]

@@PeterIntrovert In the beginning, God. He is the starting point and His creation aligns with His nature because He is "I am". Our relationship to Him is either creature to creator "Adam". Or child and father "Jesus". The son knows the business of his father and imitates him. Son knows how to order his day, his activities, his relationship, his words, his time. Law of God is revelation, not a burden. Jesus is the Law. Cosmos internal and external are in alignment and bound.

[@PeterIntrovert]

@@paveli1181 it's good as long as person don't fall into propositional tyranny. Meaning-making can take different shapes and forms. I was born in catholic culture but didn't inherited any wisdom cultivation tradition. I am not bounded to any dominant narration but I can appreciate many mithologies. I like interpretation of Christian God presented by John in his series.

[@kevinmcdonald6560]

conversation cycle: enthusiastically interrupts, then ''please continue''

[@vartanvartanian4412]

Good conversation. A little too many interruptions before the Bishop makes his points. Reminds me of Jordan Peterson interrupting during your dialogue. But really good, onto something.

[@patricksee10]

The bishop is quite right that Gods essence is live agape and he asks that we love him and others as we love our selves. The strong inference from this central proposition about God and his love for us is they Gods essence is one of agape love. Hence the energies God displays in his creation of us and all else is one of love. Gods love is the reason for creation, the requirement of humans and the purpose of all. If we understand the primacy of love in the divine, that points to the purpose of Gods energy in his creation. The result is that the energy essence distinction disappears. It is not a true dividing line in God

[@kevinhathaway7240]

Very helpful, even to the uninitiated searcher. This whole thing about Platonism, Logos, Dialectic contains a lot of 'cover' for those promoting their unique world view. In other words, one can use these tenets in ways to confuse others and to promote a belief system. This is the norm and not the exception. Therefore, John is getting to the root of the matter.

[@mcnallyaar]

ALRIGHT!!!! THE FANS HAVE SPOKEN AND DR. VERVAEKE PROVIDED!!!!!

[@iliya3110]

Answer: Yes. ☦️☦️☦️

[@michealwalli7324]

also would love some deeper explanation of neoplatonism. I'm very perplexed.

[@oneservant]

Glory be to God

[@noreenquinn3844]

Great thoughtful discussion. By two good men. About rituals... Rituals can be very good, but forced rituals in religion seem to me not to be conducive to connectedness to anything. It is akin to being forced to perform on the spot with all the associated pressures. Shouldn't religions ideally have some rituals but mostly afford a place ( an open house) to join in? A 24 / 7 place of teaching, discussion, silence, meditation, study, prayer, nourishment, voluntary offerings ( soup, tea), etc. where people of any religion and none can come and go and join in as they are able to. This welcoming, non pressurised atmosphere alone will be conducive to making people more able and willing to join in ( I think). The joining in will bring all kinds of wisdom, connectedness, and friendships . The only criteria are respect, politeness, and openness to friendship with God / the oneness, your neighbour, and yourself. I think of Jesus wandering into the temple and listening and asking questions of the elders. I also think of him out and about, reaching out to people. I think of the spontaneous discussions that took place on hills and sea shores when he was about and that this was not considered overly unusual. Jesus used parables to make people think, and he held discussions with his apostles and disciples. All in a non forceful way. I think of his love of connectedness with people, his mother, the sick, etc.. Whatever one thinks of Jesus, he had a way with people that we can copy. Perhaps a universal symbol encompassing all religions is needed. One that could be worn by religious leaders, elders and others. One that says, "I am here, come talk with me". A symbol that is conducive to discussions and reflection taking place on hill sides, sea shores, or anywhere that is in the open and among other people. Maybe restaurants, parks, workplaces etc.. could have dedicated places for this. A place where if you sit there, it shows that you are able and open to talking and connecting with people to gain wisdom ? Perhaps a theme for each days discussion in such places could be set by a group of wise elders ( like John Vervaeke and the Bishop etc.) and this could be publicised somewhere and accessed by all. Perhaps a team of wise people could volunteer to take turns / rotas, sitting in these places making themselves available to get the ball rolling? National policies to make more free time, ect, may be needed in association with practices to build wisdom. Also, serious policies for addressing mental illness and drug abuse that is so evident in society and on the streets. ( shorter working week, perhaps, psychologists and psychiatrist on the streets and as part of discussion groups ( mostly to listen, observe, help the sick, to facilitate job placements and personal fulfilment)?). There is much personal pain out there. Yes, rituals are also conducive to connectedness. Work is one big ritual. Perhaps we need to remember this and look up in awe from work every once in a while and consider where that absorbance took us. Perhapa, let that awe inspire our search for wisdom.

[@mcnallyaar]

"I think the integration between Logo and Agape in Christian Neo-Platonism is Good. It helps make us wiser, it gets us better comported toward reality."

[@PilgrimVisions]

36:10 Stephen R. L. Clark, one of the great Christian Neoplatonist philosophers of our time, suggests something similar--that man is fundamentally a contemplative animal, and not distinguished by reason per se--in his recent essay collection Can We Believe in People?

[@grailcountry]

First. Also just watched Sam and Jordan, embarrassment of riches

[@kevin_heslip]

What channel is theirs hosted on?

[@grailcountry]

@@kevin_heslip kzbin.info/www/bejne/m2PIfZhuZb6Cl9k

[@1walkerw]

Noose = right hemisphere (per Ian McGilchrist’s work)

[@orthodoxboomergrandma3561]

There does come a moment when one has to choose FOR Christ and come into the Church or choose to remain outside (like Jordan Peterson) and risk being with the goats in the general resurrection and literally hear Christ say “Depart From Me… I never knew you” or something like this. He is a person and as individual specific persons that will exist eternally WE must choose personally to come into His Body before our Soul is separated from our body…there is no repentance after death. I pray that you will choose for Christ John, and be willing to crucify your intellect and come to Him in humility. You won’t regret it. He will give everything back to you just like he restored Job! 🙏🏻☦️🙏🏻🥰🥰🥰 From a former Clinical Psychologist PhD (SUNY Stony Brook, NIH, 2year postdoc UCSF Medical Center Assistant Clinical professor) BA psychology Cum Laude UCLA

[@2x_espresso]

The description of "nous" around 29 minutes sounds very similar to the nature of the right brain hemisphere.

[@3VLN]

The problem with the Buddhist concept of Karuna, in as much as Buddhism remains agnostic (at best ) of the idea of a specific transcendental, not to mention its characteristic view of a conflicting relation between matter and spirit, and it's emphasis on the pursuit of non being. It is that it just not only has no ground for agape but it makes it impossible to justify it at any level. Whereas Christianity solves the matter and spirit dilemma, as it moves towards the fullness of being through agape. Really different scenarios. IMO

[@Sijilos]

😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱 superstars :D

[@zzzaaayyynnn]

Technology is the god that limps, love it.

[@zzzaaayyynnn]

@@muntelestraniu14 great point!

[@Waldorfunn]

Please get to the core of Orthodoxy with full freedom of heart as what it is in is full essence and expression. What makes Orthodoxy deeply orthodoxy in itself. ( No need to always compare...)

[@orthodoxboomergrandma3561]

To grasp the whole of an insight with the nous sounds like theoria perhaps

[@AngeloNasios]

τὴν δὲ ἱερατικήν, ἥ ἐστι θεῶν θεραπεία "But as for theurgy, it is the worship of the Gods" Damascius

[@mariog1490]

Interesting that they started talking about the nous and the logos. They identified the nous with the capacity to notice, but I think logos is very similar. Logos originally meant to gather (usually wood). I see those as pretty related and not seeing the logos as propositional. Even when Aristotle talks about man as a rational animal, he thought taxonomy was central to reason. And what is taxonomy other than the noticing and gathering of things together? (Now yes, I know the Neoplatonists reject taxonomy, but this is a polemic I’m not interested in, nor do I think it has any barring on the discussion). And even Heidegger expands that the idea of logos doesn’t just gather, but also lays out.

[@zzzaaayyynnn]

I was interested in John's mention of "care" related to nous in terms of Heidegger's concept of "sorge." Of course, anxiety would not be a characteristic of such care in an Orthodox sense. I guess.

[@mariog1490]

@@zzzaaayyynnn definitely that would be interesting. Although, let’s be fair, Heidegger takes a lot from Kierkegaard. In fact, I say he plagiarized him in many ways. You are very right, Heidegger’s concept of care is not hugging flowers. It’s very close to a word for anxiety. And after really thinking through this I got why Heidegger and Kierkegaard that care was central to being. And I really learned this from Nietzsche and Jung: The joy of suffering is that it breaks us apart so that we can be made new.

[@orthodoxboomergrandma3561]

@@mariog1490 I’d like to learn more about Care and Anxiety…. Can you point me where to read?

[@mariog1490]

@@orthodoxboomergrandma3561 sadly, I am Poot with secondary sources. I can read Kant, but man do I hate reading people talking about Kant. So I would read the beginning to Heidegger’s being and time. But honestly, Kierkegaard is the original orator of these ideas. So I would read Kierkegaard. He’s also much clearer than Heidegger and more existential. I’ll hit you later with the specific books. Maybe if those are too thick, I can look for some good video lectures. Most of them suck though.

[@orthodoxboomergrandma3561]

@@mariog1490 thanks… I was wondering about this because I struggle with “anxiety” and I “care” a lot about people lol…if there is some phenomenological philosophical connection that I could grasp it might help me…

[@ChristianLogos]

I also think an important point on love is that love serves as a functional category of communion and community. Love is a binding agreement to a higher purpose and thus the realization of unique identity without meshing it into “oneness”. The Trinity is a functional example how the One and many cooperate in love and harmony making the God Head itself. The ancient Greeks heavily favored “oneness” but really struggled with finding away to incorporate the “many” without destroying their identity in it. Especially Neoplatonism attempts at this solution with the “intellect” or “One-Being” which respresnts an active category between the One(beyond all being and source of) and how it can actually engage with the world. If you actually read Plotinus and replace wherever he uses “intellect” with “Christ” you start to really see how Christ himself is the personal balance between the one and many in Love.

[@dunadan7136]

I think your criticism of heavy emphasis on one-ness is valid, but I question if this is really applicable to Platonism. Plato would make more sense if by "unity" he meant "*integrative* unity". Meaning a type of unity that does not suppress multiplicity and thus transcends both pure unity and multiplicity. Plato's Charmides shows that Plato thinks that particulars are important as well, even if particulars do derive their identities from universals (this particular-universal distinction is not entirely clear cut as well, since nearly everything is both a universal and a particular). Plato's ideal state also portrays a state with clear distinctions among its members who are nevertheless united. Therefore I think "one-ness" for Plato should be understood as integrative unity rather than just pure unity, a superposition of both unity and multiplicity even.

[@ChristianLogos]

@@dunadan7136 I don’t think Plato takes the unity of the One and its complete transcendence as far as the Neoplatonists do such as Plotinus which John is heavily influenced by in my opinion. My critique of Plato however is that the presuppositions of his system clearly lead Plotinus to posit that ALL distinction is division and Plato himself couldn’t answer how exactly this ideal realm of the forms connects with the material. This is exactly Aristotles point of contention with Plato where he develops is Hylomorphism doctrine of form and matter. I actually like a lot of Plato but I think his system as a whole has logical dialectics that lead to the destruction of knowledge epistemically. Now I understand at those times people weren’t asking the questions that later philosophy will ask such as the enlightenment, David Hume, Descartes and linguistic philosophers. They will begin to point out the presuppositions of the history of philosophy as a whole. I truly believe that philosophy is a on going debate between Plato and Aristotle and the repercussion’s of their systems because they mark two distinct starting points, Platos in man’s own mind and Aristotle in man’s own experiences. What we notice in this is man has no grounding for knowledge outside of himself without divine revelation but this revelation must also entail a balance of unity and multiplicity in a personal manner not just a static logical system. In other words man in his mind and experience can’t answer the implications of universal states of affairs without a being revealing this nature to him through revelation but even in this revelation there are still requirements on what this deity could be. Plato shows us that there does need to be some balance of unity and multiplicity and Aristotle shows us it must also be associated to our direct personal experiences. In short I think Christianity and Jesus Christ really only shows us this proper balance and order of theology presented by the Eastern Fathers.

[@ChristianLogos]

@@dunadan7136 I’d recommend this paper to really see what distinctions I’m talking about: Logic and the Absolute: Platonic and Christian Views by Philip Sherrard

[@dunadan7136]

@@ChristianLogos >"Plotinus to posit that ALL distinction is division" I remember reading Plotinus' Enneads and I don't really recall him positing that distinction is division. I thought he was quite explicit about Nous being unity-in-multiplicity. In fact I think I remember him also saying that the Forms are more distinct since they are more intelligible yet are also more unified together and inseparable from each other. >"Plato himself couldn’t answer how exactly this ideal realm of the forms connects with the material" I think he was more concerned with proving that universals do have an independent existence from material particulars and that universals are both transcendent and immanent in relation to their particulars. How this works is likely beyond his pay grade. But I think Plato has proven these two points. >"Platos in man’s own mind and Aristotle in man’s own experiences." I would argue that Plato is actually an experientialist and not at all a rationalist. Once nous is understood to be better translated as consciousness and not mind/intellect then this becomes obvious. Noesis, which is the highest grade of positive knowing for Plato, is experiential - after all it is intellectual intuition and described as thought directly perceiving the Forms. Additionally, knowing takes two to tango and involves both a subject and an object, so the object must also be accessible to the subject. If we want to avoid nihilism, we have to take it for granted that our thought (subject) can actually know and understand reality (object). If one wishes to embrace nihilism then one is free to dissolve this link between thought and being but then he will be reduced to just voicing opinions, since nihilism means we can only have opinions and not knowledge. And if thought cannot be trusted to perceive reality, then we can't be sure if the thing we're perceiving right now is actually divine revelation and not some illusion or mind trickery. This IMHO is the great error of Descartes and Kant, since they fundamentally disconnect thought from being. BTW, I do agree that there are limits to discursive/deductive reasoning. What I cannot accept is that thought cannot know being. This is also why non-discursive reason or intellectual intuition is necessary and why Platonists believe such a thing truly existed.

[@ChristianLogos]

@@dunadan7136 1) Plotinus is implying that anything distinct from the one itself is a lesser degree of being since the One is beyond all being itself and the source there of. This is what he means by distinction implies division as it is associated with the One. Anything conceptually distinct is therefore lesser than the One and therefore what is distinct is placed in the “intellect”, also side critique how can intelligence be conceptualized outside of a personal being? I’ve read all the Enneads myself as well and I’ll find where he says distinction implies division, I believe it’s in Ennead V but this concept is called ‘absolute divine simplicity’ which will go on to influence Augustine and the West basically destroying their personal conception of God. God, History and Dialectic goes in great depth on this but also the church fathers themselves make this clear and as St. Basil says “we worship a He not an it” and this mode of dialectic apparent in Plotinus and all Greeks is the assumption that the essence of God is somehow intelligible which Biblical revelation explicitly denies. Therefore the order of theology between Christianity and Platonism is completely opposite. Platonism being essence -> attributes -> persons and Christianity being Persons -> attributes-> essence. This is the confusion of nature and person and assumes the essential unity of being before personalized being itself, in other words it acts as if nature exists outside of hypostases(persons) but as we can see from even the natural world nature is always ‘enhypostized’ in the mode of personal beings. To start on the Neoplatonic notion of simplicity is to start with a unknowable first principle thus rendering God Himself impersonal and unknowable to our experience this is what St Palamas is getting at in his debates in the 13 century against the Western conception of God. This comes from the presupposition that logic has a 1:1 correspondence with the metaphysical world but this is explicitly denied by the church fathers who I think have a much more balanced approach to logic as being limited to some extent by our very fallen nature therefore when discussing that of uncreated nature from created we can only do so in a limited degree and are very susceptible to misinterpretations without Biblical revelation from God himself of exactly what distinctions to make. 2) You’d be in contrast to Aristotles criticisms of Plato’s form as he can’t see how they would directly relate or effect the material world which is again why he mashes them into the material themselves. 3) That could easily be epistemically critiqued as you said yourself “we have to take for granted” or there are “self evident axioms” we just have to assume. David Hume will destroy this notion in his critique because to preassume any potion of your experience which is in question is a circular argument and ungrounded. I’m not arguing you can’t use these categories of experience such as the good, logic, awareness of self and existence but I’m arguing pre assuming them in order to give an account for your system is just a leap and not a justification for the system itself. I could equally just posit that the Trinity and Christ provide this underlying fabric to our personal experiences and you (or whoever) are just pre assuming this God given nature in order to deny it. It becomes relative. If you choose pure autonomy from a divine revelation then your give up your ability to justify external universality, order, existence and logic itself because you do not have access to universal affairs as a particular person wether you take a more rational idealistic explanation or a material empirical interpretation (deduction vs induction). Autonomous man has no epistemology outside of himself in order to ground these notions without just assuming them. This could be show by asking autonomous systems basic questions like, where does logic come from on your own grounds? What is the notion of self hood? What is your grounding for ethics on your own system? These will eventually end in either circularity or an infinite regress of referencing other beliefs which destroy its self evidency. The shit in epistemology vs metaphysics is a matter of asking deeper questions. It’s a paradigm to paradigm comparison instead on minute details between systems. An example would be HOW do we know the number 7 vs WHAT is the number 7, these are two separate questions. One asks for the basis of how we come to know knowledge at all vs what are the characteristics of that assumed knowledge

[@damiantrollope211]

Can you, in future material, PLEASE go deeper into Nous being better translated as Consciousness ??!!

[@orthodoxboomergrandma3561]

Nous- eye of the soul? Eye of the heart?

[@suppression2142]

Would you be willing to have a conversation with "a Christian's perspective" the youtuber, he is someone who I believe also is a orthodox Christian that is closely following matthieu pageaus work, and Johnathans as well but also has some very unique philosophical perspectives that are worth talking about he didn't come up with them but are related to pressupositional apologetics and the transcendental argument for Gods existence and I do believe the pressups philosophical argument is very much worth looking at I think this youtuber does a great job at fleshing it out and fusing it with matthieus work. Check out his video "matthieu pageau renewal, female perspective, repentance".

[@netscrooge]

First we need to realize some of the more obvious philosophical/theological implications of complexity science, then we can use that larger context to frame the discussion. Otherwise we risk staying stuck in obsolete thinking.

[@easyemu1511]

somebody get a kickstater going for the bishop's internet lol

[@oleg5241]

To engage the nous does not imply that the engagement is proper. Speaking of theurgy

[@peterp-a-n4743]

I thought Vervaeke was an agnostic atheist...?

[@benjaminlquinlan8702]

If you seek wisdom- you will find God.

[@themisterolichip]

@@benjaminlquinlan8702 No, plenty of wisom cultivation frameworks have nothing to do with God, ex: Neo-Platonism, Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, etc. In the words of Vervaeke: "don't confuse indispensibility for metaphysical necessity".

[@orthodoxboomergrandma3561]

The work of who? Around minute 46

[@georgeantonakis4151]

Piere Hadot, french philosopher.

[@orthodoxboomergrandma3561]

@@georgeantonakis4151 thank you! I recently acquired his “Philosophy as a Way of Life” and Michel Foucault’s “Technologies of the Self” and Sergey Horujy “Practices of the Self and Spiritual Practices”

[@georgeantonakis4151]

@@orthodoxboomergrandma3561 Great! Way ahead of me!

[@morganmayfair4755]

Most people need a family, a gang, an organization to lend credence to their beliefs... really their ego. So they must choose either a religion with all its flaws or our materialistic science, with all its flaws. But I think there is a place between them. A place where, like a spiritual scientist, you prove spiritual truth to yourself. And it’s largely an alone journey, full of insults and difficulty. It’s an inward journey where all of that out there is allowed to be what it is and we replace love and need for that with God, our forever partner, lover, parent, sibling.

[@Aquaticphilosophia]

John seems so weirdly immature contrasted with the bishop.

[@missh1774]

Yes to the question. Keep making and protecting old beautiful churches. Ha, they are saying "nous" meaning practical intelligence. Plato says it's "the unchanging principle of reality". Yeah aye, it's the concern of only being human and only of earth.

[@benjaminlquinlan8702]

Christianity is the fulfillment of neoplatonism

[@williamjmccartan8879]

52 minutes, you become St. John Vervaeke with the halo behind you, we have to get the audio sorted for the next conversation, thank you Bishop Maximus and John, have a great day gentlemen.

[@themisterolichip]

"Could the Orthodox Church Transform Your Life?" It kind of sounds like proselytizing for the Orthodox Church

[@eyesee9715]

Like a leading question, you mean? Or maybe just a provocative question. Proseletyzing? I looked up the definition and its pros·e·lyt·ize "convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another." The Bishop is attempting to represent how Orthodox Christian tradition (in its particular...as distinct from RC and Protestant....synthesis of Hellenic/Romaic and Judaic/Hebraic/Biblical legacies) has approached some of the same philosophical matters that interest JV. It's dialogos. In the Orthodox mindset the focus is much more on converting (transforming) ourselves than on converting anyone else, but we do share "the reason for the hope that is in us" etc with people who are interested

[@zzzaaayyynnn]

@@eyesee9715 True, "conversion" in Orthodoxy is more Christ-centered than message-centered in the Evangelical sense.

[@themisterolichip]

@@eyesee9715 I was just surprised by how this video was presented. Because usually, John presents his idea from the standpoint of his role as a cognitive science professor, talking about the way different religions view things but without talking a stance in favor of any particular one. I would be equally surprised if I saw a video titled "Could the Conservative Party of Canada Transform your life?", not because conservatives are evil or because we shouldn't talk to them but simply because it would be a break from his usual neutral style.

[@Ac-ip5hd]

@@themisterolichip It's because he has to concede they still have all the tools for the meaning crisis if you can believe. The only Christian to meet John and not require "reciprical reconstruction" on John's terms (ie academia's terms as it returns to symbols and religiosity to assert itself.) In fact he left much of John's central Neoplatonic position seriously problematized and showed the need for theology in the last discussion. And they didn't really even get into the points of combat in the beginning that deeply.

[@bayreuth79]

I do not think that Bishop Maximus is the best interlocutor. He is not, as far as I can tell, a great theological mind. David Bentley Hart (Notre Dame) or John Behr (St Andrews) or Andrew Louth (Durham) would be much better interlocutors.

[@robwhitlow2384]

Would any you mentioned make time to learn enough about John's work to as well have the conversation John wants as the Bishop?

[@krisdabrowski5420]

I'm not familiar with Andrew Louth's work, but DBH and John Behr are known heretics, for universalism and Origenism respectively. I figure John Vervaeke wants an authentic, traditional testimony of Orthodoxy, rather than academic attempts to rehabilitate condemned heresies.

[@Ac-ip5hd]

David Bentley Hart is a heretical origenist to the bone. Used for progressive “orthodoxy” and spiritual evolutionism.

[@Ac-ip5hd]

I don’t know Louth, I have a strong gut feeling though the issue isn’t that the Bishop has bad theology, but it’s more participation and he is defending real Orthodoxy and not enough of an ecumenicist for you. Stick to the Saints before new theologians and see if they are in conformity with them and the councils. See also what Saints like St. Paisos had to say about ecumenicists.

[@Ac-ip5hd]

Contemporary Saints on ecumenicism. Blessed Fr Seraphim Rose isn't canonized yet for calling this stuff out but will be. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nnPRgYyEdtSngZY

[@PanSzawu]

I was Orthodox for years and part of the GOC-K as is Bishop Maximus. The theology and everything sounds nice until it comes into blatant contradiction of their own morality, cosmology, and beliefs regarding idolatry and charity. Orthodoxy is selfish, racially exclusive, degrading and backwards. I left it and will never look back on it as a mind warping experience in which it was no better than Scientology.

[@UdG99]

Hello, could you expound upon this proclamation of contradictions in the GOC-K’s morality, cosmology and beliefs? I think if your going to leave a public comment such as the one above you should at least propound something a little more detailed. At least if your trying to genuinely be helpful and steer people clear of said Church/group. Thanks, hope to read some further details!

[@paweex3655]

No! All this eastern shit is cute, but no.

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

Fear not friend

[@Joeonline26]

Notice how you jump to quick conclusions on topics you're ignorant about. Our ignorance of particular topics requires us to delve deeper in an effort to understand, not to rashly dismiss and hate. God bless ✝️

[@zzzaaayyynnn]

Then this is not the video for you, my friend.

[@ChristianLogos]

Bring Jay Dyer on too 🤷🏽‍♀️ @jaydyer

[@islyfe]

Wonderful!