Lectern Dialogues: Philosophical Connections: Relational Ontology and the Modern Crisis

[@Footnotes2Plato]

58:00 Yes of course, John! Let's dialogue again on both the relata/relations and residual substance issue, and the actual/possible prioritization.

[@KairosDBT]

As an admirer of yours, John, and as an Orthodox Christian, Thank you for introducing us to James.

[@matthewparlato5626]

Been waiting for this. Filler is so humble and his book so profound...and John is just fabulous John as always

[@TheVeganVicar]

What do you consider to be the MOST profound book ever composed, Matthew?

[@matthewparlato5626]

@TheVeganVicar the Bible. I'm a Christian. Fillers is up there for me though lol The Enneads is up there also

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@matthewparlato5626, what is your favourite book of "The Bible", and what is your opinon of Genesis 1:29?

[@matthewparlato5626]

@TheVeganVicar I find it beautiful and as biblically illiterate as I am, I'd go "John"...pretty metaphysical

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@matthewparlato5626, surely you did not DELIBERATELY avoid my second question? 😲

[@alexandrazachary.musician]

Oooh! Thanks John for promoting Filler. Imagine a fantastic round table discussion with you two, Matt Segall and McGilchrist?!? And how about adding Rupert Sheldrake and Mark Vernon?!? I think my little phenomenologist head might explode. Lotsa love 🙏🏽❤️

[@Joeonline26]

Man, it would be cool to have someone like Eric Perl particiapte in this conversation. Perhaps John's people could reach out to him. I think he could offer important contributions.

[@Robb3348]

Agreed, Eric is a model of pellucidity

[@tuckeroliver8300]

That would be incredible

[@Andrew-M-Davis]

John and James, a great conversation! But I do think your anxieties about Whitehead and process thinkers are premature. For example, John: There is no reason why Whitehead’s “ontological principle” (or Aristotelian principle, as he calls it) has to be read in terms of the priority or primacy of actuality over possibility. For Whitehead, the metaphysical inversion of the ontological principle also applies: the actual is nothing without the possible. That both possibility and actuality require each other is precisely how we reach the ultimacy of their relationally. I make this point in my book Mind, Value, and Cosmos: On the Relational Nature of Ultimacy (below). Arguably, substance is not fully dismissed either (although Descartes "nothing-but" substance certainly is) but re-thought in terms of atomic events that become out of their relations. Process philosophy is a rethinking of substance as verb-like event-relations embodying creativity. Creativity is Aristotle's prime matter rendered utterly active: It’s nothing without its embodiment in actuality. Also, I think you both would enjoy Chapter X of Whitehead’s great book Adventures of Ideas where he praises the Alexandrian theologians for improving upon Plato in terms of their relational affirmation of “mutual immanence” of all in all. They arrived at this “discovery” when wrestling with Trinitarian doctrine. James, I've not yet read your book, but I will! My own contribution to the ultimacy of relationality was my dissertation as well: www.amazon.com/Mind-Value-Cosmos-Relational-Contemporary-ebook/dp/B08MDLVWD4/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3D0ZWYLBQR0KP&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.vCk_1BMnl7_xLXp63xwRHndbUb8hveJHA4Gh0CEulW-ae8MUch-QTXtsDEpLG2giuYGrWaGdsPbWydFQn7XppJpSb7Z9AUOpAXgE17ZJSC1iG2GgRsq5kM84zH7ww2Zld4B1T9rgoiv5F6d8dZl4SAh_b7_zmAx3KdpZUi2OGR87Mui_btUQKcgwjTHWZiHEqyvegWfL6EZP31whe2drwtFl5r7ibrtFrJFEdRUeCs4.gOaZqqSGj1pxieEyT2sZx3dds0bxx7J3ZGl6jYHjp8w&dib_tag=se&keywords=Mind%2C+Value%2C+Cosmos&qid=1732389709&sprefix=mind%2C+value%2C+cosmos%2Caps%2C521&sr=8-1 Cheers andrewmdavis.info

[@santerisatama5409]

What is actual (energeia) and potential (dynamis) is also contextually relational and perspectival. A very interesting question could be also how Whitehead relates with Proclus - whose commentary on Euclid I'm currently reading. AFAIK for Proclus the "true actual" is the Nous, and each part in-formed in Nous has the potential to become fully informed and fully actual, which I gather is the meaning of the Neoplatonic Apotheosis. What you say about process ontological substance (hypokeimenon, lying under) is very interesting. In mathematics the process ontological substance is the reflecting surface (both ideal and phenomenal to external senses) in which shadow projections of geometric Forms can be perceived in the mathematical science of Dianoia. I very pleasant surprise for has been the revelation that Proclus' Academic philosophy of mathematics is very close to David Bohm's philosophy of (quantum) physic: Holomovement and active information, explicate orders unfolding from implicate orders. Proclus even uses the same term - unfolding - to describe how mathematical forms unfold through dianoia (active information received as intuition) from the implicate orders of Nous into explicate orders perceived/projected by external senses e.g. as drawings on sand/computer screens. Bohm was deeply influenced by Whitehead, but AFAIK didn't read Bergson or Proclus directly, but came to similar views intuitively.

[@PeterStrider]

Thank you John and James! What a great discussion! I always find myself with a notepad full of additional thinkers and books I have to get to, and I see tonight that James' new book is now available on Amazon to purchase (but is a little outside my amateur budget, however much I would like to support him!) I look forward to more of these discussions John. Thanks again

[@AdventusQ]

Awesome talk! Filler showed me that anamnesis is real. Once I got his argument it just feels like I already knew it lol. May Prime Relationality bless him!

[@colorfulbookmark]

Dr.Vervaeke has cares about the world and some generalization tackled him as someone's proof demand. I honor and respect his profession.

[@colorfulbookmark]

Thesedays, although not my main study, I am learning Japanese food for critic to introduce the cultures to people, while I am doing this, I always come to Dr.Vervaeke and Dr.Peterson's channel, it would be great care for people, I hope these people have good year 2024 and I think cares given by them are invaluable by anyone ^^

[@colorfulbookmark]

I have reveres for many people who present cares to the world. Whether they are conservative or progressive or feminist or masculinist, if the rescue is real, I have respect for revere for them. Dr.Petersom, Dr.Vervaeke, Dr.Chung and many others, they presented cares to the world, so I respect and honor them.

[@elizabethraper3963]

Man, John is amazing. He is always making a connection and bringing us along. Thank you, John. And I'll try to get the book you review here on relational oncology. ❤

[@elizabethraper3963]

Ontology - not cancer.

[@elizabethraper3963]

ontology

[@traviswadezinn]

Good, insightful dialogue - good spirit ; thank you

[@andrewbartlett9282]

Beautiful point re humility at the end of the conversation

[@joshshortt9599]

It would be interesting to hear more about the ethical implications of relational ontology.

[@santerisatama5409]

The implication that seems as challenging as interesting is Matrix/Plato's Cave that is programmable only from the inside, cf. the Matrix trilogy. Relational ontology negates Objective Realism, and with that the Correspondence theory of Truth. Thus we are left with the Coherence theory of Truth, in which the primary truth condition from a participant perspective is belonging to a coherent whole.

[@vicentesantos726]

I would like to understand better The implications of substance onthology...if I understood correclty, aristotelian onthology would lead to an individualism because of the notion of substance as something that depends only of itself...but aristotle has his ethics and it is not individualistic...so I'm confused

[@santerisatama5409]

@@vicentesantos726 The common meaning of the Greek word 'ousia' that Aristotle used, is realty/fixed assets. This subtext of substance is at the core of Heideggerian criticism of Aristotle. Reduction of Being and Becoming into immovable property as abusus ownership, which allows to alienate e.g. land ownership by selling or destroying land has had the deep implication of general social alienation. The word "individual" is Latin for the Greek word "atom". That word started to refer to human beings in the era of Feudal Serfdom and Aristotelean scholasticism. People considered part of the immovable property of land ownership by king and then by any abstract state.

[@vicentesantos726]

@@santerisatama5409 I have never heard of this translation of ousia..I'll look for it, thank you. Anyway, Heidegger is famous for heterodox translations and particular use of words (aletheia, for exemple, is not unveiling)... And also, I wonder if we take the word in its common sense and not consider it in the philosophical context that the author wanted....like hyle is wood...for aristotle in his philosophy it is matter, i.e, what can receive many forms...but a contemporary can play with the various possibilities of the term wood.... Another thing is that it is playful to go around "fixed" and "assets"...with one shot it hits the accusation of substance as a "fixed" notion (which is very debatable) and it allows the discussion of property, therefore, out of nowhere, we are in the politics domain... But anyway, I think that what really matters is: Is Heidegger right about his understanding of substance? Did he get correctly what Aristotle wanted to say? I have given some examples that could lead to the conclusion that he didnt...but I dont know, I really dont know

[@santerisatama5409]

@@vicentesantos726 I'm referring to a Finnish book by Jussi Backman. Translated into English, the book title is "Property and Life - Heidegger and Aristotle On the Border of Greek Ontology". Backman is part of the Heideggerian philosophical movement of Thinking in Finnish. Meaning basically, applying Heidegger's philological method to a non-European language and culture. I'm native Finnish speaker, and Backman's book was for me more easy and lucid than English thanslation of Heidegger's book Plato's Sophist, which is the main opus of his criticism against Aristotle. My own academic and professional background is Greek philology and translating Greek classics into Finnish. I think that "unveiling" or "uncovering" is a very good translation of aletheia, the etymological connotations of Greek words are very important for comprehending the wisdom tradition of Thinking in Greek. On the other hand, Finnish word for Truth has basically the same meaning as Aristotle's concept 'energeia' (actual). Instead of Aristotle, the master mathematician Eudoxus was chosen after Plato as the second scholarchos of the Academy, and that was a blessing. From the sources available, the best source on Academic philosophy and ontology of mathematics comes 800 years later from another scholarchos of the Academy, from Proclus' commentary on Euclid. Proclus' Platonism gives a very different view of Greek ontology. Mathematics is the intermediant science between the implicate order of/in Nous and the explicate orders of external sense projections/perceptions. Both Proclus and Bohm use the term "unfolding" to describe the relational process ontology of mathematics. Not exactly same as aletheia, but unfolding is close enough to see a close semantic connection, and recognize the unfolding process from implicate order to explicate orders as the source of mathematical truth with enduring value.

[@gingersaiyan5516]

I’d also like to see John Betz, who is a leading Erich Przywara scholar on the Analogia Entis, to speak about the Trinity and philosophy. Maybe David Bentley Hart too for an eastern orthodox philosopher.

[@santerisatama5409]

"Identity" in the mathematical meaning of equivalence relation is secondary to the differentiation process of distinction creation by autopoietic in-forming. Mereology is by definition an inequivalence relation: The whole is greater than the part (5th Common notion in Euclid's Elementa). Platonic mereology and Greek mathematics as developed in the Akademeia are naturally holistic mereology. In holistic foundational formal language that includes also a Stern-Brocot type top-down view of number theory (coprime fractions are generated first), the generating nesting structure of 'Creation Operator' (to lend term form QM) is a relational codependence: Symbols < and > expressing directed continuous movement (cf momenta, acceleration etc.) as the ontological primitive, and the generator < > expressing movement outwards from their co-created and shared interval in-between. The generative algorithm is called "concatenating mediants": < > < > < > < > > etc. Equivalence relation, when comparing comparable magnitudes, can be derived from modal negation of differentiation: When A and B cease to increase and decrease relative to each other so that A is neither more nor less than B, then A=B. Equivalence relations thus emerge from inwards movement > < that can coincide into halting >

[@colorfulbookmark]

How about this? Question: If the computer system spitted out this error: "The operation was not written to the segment between 0x1049500268 to 0x99999999f, what is this meaning? Answer: It varies by situation Question: If router LED is blue, what is the meaning? Answer: Phenomena and causations are different, so it varies by situation. Question: What meaning of this? cout

[@santerisatama5409]

@@colorfulbookmark The first part of your comment exemplifies quantum etc. contextuality. When mathematical notion of equality is derived from relational operators, it applies only to comparable magnitudes etc. qualia. Contextuality. In which case we can't state that 5 apples = 5 oringes which denies the set theory, and the idea that "number" is an abstract entity with inherent existence (existential quantifier postulated by existential quantification, just by declaring "there is..." *** In the latter part you discuss some bit rotation aspects of the fixed word length (e.g. 8-bit words) of the von Neumann architecture of these kinds of mechanical computers. I find computation theory based on arbitrary word lengths much more interesting. Two chirally symmetric words of any length ....... ...>

[@colorfulbookmark]

@@santerisatama5409 Thank you for reply ^^

[@colorfulbookmark]

@@santerisatama5409 The symbol and its referent is the main problem of philosophy and mathematics, discussed in modern terms from Frege's theory. The symbol is arbitrary but promise so rule is definite and the definition should have non-arbitrary, no more anlaysis on why the symbolization is defined. The referent is important, than symbol itself, if we rely on de re or de dicto distinction, identity problem in math and philosophy would have been able to demarcation well.

[@colorfulbookmark]

I think Heiddeger and Bergson are existentialists or phenomenologists, so analytic philosophy is somehow different look, however de re and de dicto are concepts all metaphysics can refer, so one solution to the problem of symbols and identity of things including human identity.

[@Hyumanity]

Love the timing of the glitch at 32:45. Are we breaking out of the matrix/paradigm of substance ontology? :O :)

[@vicentesantos726]

Hi John and James, thank you both for your work! First of all, sorry about my english, I´m not an english native speaker. I´m a beginner in philosophy, I´ve been studying it for a few years, which is, in philosophical time, a newborn baby. Additionally, in my country there is no philosophical dialogue, so, as John said in the end, there is an immense loss in my learning and personal growth because of that. That being said, I´would like to make some questions and I would be very happy if I could get some response. (I´m not even a social network type, so I´m not sure if this is the best place to do it). 1. The aristotelian concept of substance. If I got it right, during the vídeo,it was argued that there is some kind of opposition regarding the notion of relationality and the notion of substance, because the notion of substance is understood as something independent of everything else. But doesn´t Aristotle recognizes the existence of a first substance and a second substance? And doesn´t Aristotle accepts mutation in substances? When Aristotle talks about an Independence, doesn´t he just mean that there are accidents, changes etc, but something remains, something is permanent (not Forever and not immutably)... When we say something changes and something has accidents...it just has meaning if we use a notion of permanence...Saying ”This” changed from this condition to that condition means we are referencing a “this”...Something is related to something...don´t we need terms to that relations? And doesn´t those terms are substances, or better, before that, unities? 2. About act as coming first potentialiaty. Aquinas says that God is pure act, but he also discusses an “active potentiality”. Also, there is a greek concept of meon (I´ve heard there is something called meontology) that would be a study of the “non-being”. There is an unknown philosophy from my country that has written something about it. Let me know if you are interested and I can try to translate parts of it. 3. Doesn´t the pythagorean decade help this discussion on relationality? One (1), duality (2), relation (3), reciprocity (4)... and the divine would be the sum of it (10, the decade)... The unknown local philosopher goes on with the numbers to five (form) and on and on...let me know if you are interested and I could try to translate parts of it. 4. About the scholastic simplicity of God. This local philosopher created a personal philosophy in which he starts with two absolutely truths ( there is something; and there is no Absolute nothing) and then he goes on with over 300 thesis in which he expects to apodictily demonstrate many philosophical hypothesis. He thinks he demonstrated that the “Supreme Being” must be absolutely simple. If you are interested in some of this demonstrations I can try to translate that. 5. One last comment, this philosopher argues that Aristotle was aware of the diferences in the logical, ontological and ontic orders (of course Aristotle would not use this words). What I want to say is that it may be disputed that for Aristotle the ultimate reality is logical in a propositional sense. Maybe that confusion happened with some aristotelian and, therefore, there may have happened a fight against Aristotle, but that may not have had been his understanding. Thank you if you read this and thank you for your work making available to the public high quality and cooperative discussions, dialogues and dialogos.

[@paulkeogh7077]

Around 19 mins John says he can’t see how you get relata from relations but relations/relationality seeks connections/connectivity which is in-forming and therefore an attractive force resulting in the conversion of energy into mass. I think there are many scientists who could articulate this better than me. Further, relations/relationality isn’t an objective thing, possibly not even intersubjective, which means it’s probably transjective. Wonder what John thinks about this?

[@santerisatama5409]

The Heidegger inspired philosophical school of Finnish Thinking (Tere Vaden, Pauli Pylkkö et alii) makes a big deal out Finnish morphology and semantics of "asubjective verbs" in indefinite person, which can form full grammatical sentences without any subject or object. From what I understand, similar grammatical phenomena exist is Navajo and other indigenous languages. As a native Finnish speaker, I associate "transjective" with asubjective verbs. Subject and object form a codependent pair, a distinction which can situationally arise and dissolve also on linguistic level. Asubjective verbs dissolve the distinction, but include also the potential of the distinction arising. PS: the physicalist concept of energy is very problematic, and digging deeper into that mess would require a long discussion.

[@Footnotes2Plato]

42:00 Whitehead would respond to the Cratylus problem by reminding folks of his other category of existence = eternal objects. Among other things, eternal objects are what allow us to justify knowledge through recognition of forms that endure amidst the flux. Happy to share my recent "Process Studies" article on this subject if you're interested!

[@vicentesantos726]

Hi John and James, if I understood correctly, such substance ontology would lead us to a certain ethics and it would explain some problems we see today. How would you articulate such understanding of aristotelian ontology and its consequences with the nichomachean ethics?

[@born5601]

Great discussion, would be great to hear Matt Segall join the both of you 😀

[@RobinTurner]

My reaction on seeing this in my KZbin feed: "Oh yeah, a new Vervaeke video 😃 .... Oh no, Heidegger 😧"

[@82472tclt]

Is Desmond's "overdeterminate otherness" another name for relationality?

[@mcapello8836]

I'm curious about the critique of Heraclitus. It seems a bit hasty to conclude that knowledge is fundamentally impossible in a world which is in constant flux. All it would require would be something like periods of relation stable enough to ground knowledge. The fact that change might eventually uproot that ground would not seem to require us to deny that it would still amount to knowledge. This might seem unsatisfying if we regard knowledge as metaphysically transcendent, but if we acknowledge that knowledge is fundamentally embodied and agentic, I'm not sure why the problem of flux would remain a barrier.

[@BishopMaximusofPelagonia]

Excellent!

[@Wrath669]

"Existence is relativity." - Alan Watts

[@The.Zen.Diogenes]

I think that Relational Ontology should be much more known (James also). There should be a marriage of Relational Ontology and the no-thingness of Sunnyata because each of them can help us understand the other much better. The Kyoto School work should be continued. Also, I wish that the lectern was more structured in clear topics like the one you did with Evan Thompson.

[@TheVeganVicar]

What do you mean by "no-thingness"?

[@Vincenzowittnessingsisyphos]

​@@TheVeganVicar can only imaginge the concept of nothingness analytically split apart into an existent (?) that itself is "no thing" like other things your can intend, objectify and engage or operate with or even think about. The question in my understanding than is, what is the explanatory benefit of postulating a nothingness that exists but that is no thing whatsoever? Does this notion explain real structures of reality in order to make it plausible or even necessary that it has to exist? Graham priest makes a nice job by (very simplyfied) stating that nothingness is principally the background against with existence emerges. The idea of no-thingness ultimately can be related to other subjects. The self, consciousness, reality as a structured whole. Whenever you try to grasp reality in a thingy way, you as the selfreferential part of reality will leave the "whole" you try to adress as a thing incomplete. But maybe something else was meant. Also there is more to say. But i had a question to @The.Zen.Diogenes , how would you combine sunyata and kyoto school to relationality?

[@The.Zen.Diogenes]

@TheVeganVicar It means that "things" do not have an independent existence. "By substance we can understand nothing else than an entity which is in such a way that it needs no other entity in order to be.” -Heidegger

[@santerisatama5409]

@@TheVeganVicar Socrates' famous dictum "hen oida hoti ouden oida" is a pun. Literally translated: "The one I know is that not-one I know." In more fluent English translation: "The thing I know is no-thing". The pun presents 'relational One' Sunyata in a funny way. We should not think that Socrates and Plato were stupid, and that the dictum tries to propose nihilistic epitstemology.

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@The.Zen.Diogenes, in your own words, define “EXIST”. ☝️🤔☝️

[@jameswilson799]

I’m loving the conversation and planning on ordering the book, but I’m wondering if the book deals with Augustine’s conception of a relational substance (or substantial relation), Especially given Augustine’s influence on Heidegger

[@colorfulbookmark]

I have same love and respect for Dr.Vervaeke's conversation, and leaved reply with agreement about Augustine's inclusion to the book, but the reply contained my life experience, so I re-leave reply like this ^^ I thank you for Dr.Vervaeke, and jameswilosn799, it would be always good opportunity to come to this channel ^^

[@pauls4711]

During the part where John mentions quantum entanglement, he refers to a book, I think “One” but couldn’t make out the author .. anyone know the book he’s referring to?

[@francescoangeli1087]

Heinrich Pas, "The One. How an Ancient Idea Holds The Future of Physics ".

[@FrSymeonAgiomichaelities]

Have read Orthodox Christian Philosopher Christos Yannaras’ book “Relational Ontology “

[@paulkeogh7077]

Wouldn’t the multiplicity in actuality be potentiality?

[@roywodtke1690]

John, you really should let your guests talk and you should listen

[@michaelmcarthur8364]

The quest of trying to figure it out as the imagination of being a Demi-Godhead and because of the incomprehensible and overwhelming itch of the turbulent unsettleness of the quandary that is your/our are own lives. Hey Icarus...

[@garrett9945]

Is he a knowledge first philosopher then?

[@janthonycologero9206]

They talk about the dialectic around 29 minutes in kzbin.info/www/bejne/l5KciatrrK5riNksi=65pkIPNSKO-Igrzz

[@billg302]

What about removing the limitations of biology? This is an interesting AI generated podcast based on an encyclopedia of philosophy as the primary input. The dialogue is amazing kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYjQgKpqmZWFZtUsi=tHvDEenv3sQCipIt