Transcendent Naturalism Ep. 1 | Dr. John Vervaeke and Gregg Henriques

Dr. John Vervaeke and Gregg Henriques challenge prevailing notions about science, spirituality, and their intricate relationship in this first episode of the series entitled: Transcendent Naturalism. They embark on a journey through modern worldviews, diving into concepts such as reductionism, the Cartesian divide, and the tension between objective and subjective understanding. This dialogue brings out the complexity of reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity, the prevalent models that rob human beings of meaning and wisdom, and the importance of transcendence. Furthermore, the discourse touches on extended naturalism, the critique of reductionism, and the groundbreaking concept of energy information singularity. Dr. Vervaeke and Henriques shed light on meta-arguments, the relevance of convergence in argumentation, the depth of transjectivity, and the vast expanse of collective intelligence. They also explore the concepts of abstraction, self-organization, and the interplay of causality and constraints.
For full-show notes including ample resources and the audio version of this episode, please visit: john-vervaeke.simplecast.com/...
Time-codes:
00:00:00: Dr. John Vervaeke introduces the new series "Transcendent Naturalism," a bridge between science and spirituality.
00:01:36: Gregg Henriques underscores the significance of understanding meaning-making and its relevance today.
00:04:56: Dr. Vervaeke highlights the tension between science and spirituality in contemporary culture.
00:07:34: Dr. Vervaeke explores the idea of reductionism within the hard sciences.
00:10:33: The discussion dives into the implications of the subjective-objective divide.
00:15:30: Dr. Vervaeke speaks on the prevalent models depriving human beings of meaning and wisdom.
00:18:40: The purpose of the series is presented, aiming to help listeners transcend their intellectual straitjackets.
00:22:41: Dr. Vervaeke emphasizes the need for a broader understanding of the psyche's grip on reality.
00:23:30 Introduction of the concept of extended naturalism, suggesting that our understanding of reality isn't limited to what's derivable from hard sciences but also includes what these sciences presuppose.
00:30:24: The discourse moves to a conformity theory of knowing, the idea of reality not being flat land, and the need for a leveled ontology.
00:45:16: Gregg Henriques discusses the role of abstraction in communication.
00:59:53: Dr. Vervaeke introduces the concept of reality being layered in a bottom-up emergence and top-down emanation.
01:06:40: Conformity theory: how the principles governing the mind and the world mutually participate in the same governing principles.
01:09:20: Transjectivity: a deeper relationship than subjectivity and objectivity, which is necessary for knowledge and truth.
01:15:39: The power of collective intelligence in problem-solving and understanding complex concepts is explored.
01:18:27: Dr. Vervaeke and Gregg Henriques discuss their converging ideas and the importance of ongoing dialogue.
01:23:40: Gregg Henriques discusses the concept of transjectivity and its application to his key concepts.

[@Beederda]

Thank you both for your time and attention ❤🍄

[@nomoresunforever3695]

I'm a young filmmaker from Europe. Im listening to this while working out. This will make its way into my work. Even if i don't try. There must be thousands of people like me around the world, all playing their little or big parts in society. Don't stop. This is working. Keep going. Jiayou.

[@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM]

JohnV, you should speak to Jay Dyer - he has an understanding of Orthodoxy to at least the same level as eg Jonathan Pageau, but a strong academic background in Classical Philosophy and the Philosophy of Science. You'd be able to take the discussion to some places that you haven't visited in any other interview.

[@mcnallyaar]

It's so refreshing and restorative to hear Dr. Vervaeke in his most hospitable element.

[@KyleSeeger]

Title and thumbnail is massively important, unfortunately. Very glad to see your thumbnails improving consistently. More people need to be drawn into this content.

[@lifearttimes]

Great dialogue Gregg & John. Keep talking, sharing and learning together. Proud! Shine On!✨

[@iamlovingawareness2284]

A new mini series with my two favorite people. Such a pleasure. When I saw ep. 1 my eyes light up

[@TheVeganVicar]

Good Girl! 👌 Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@projectmalus]

@@TheVeganVicar You talk about veganism as if it were a destination rather than a stepping stone. This removes it as a positive element affording knowledge and health. When you're tired of the penthouse, feel free to come back down into the mezzanine level where the fun is. Rise up from the garage with you as a machine. Have a good day.

[@hast3033]

veganism is really fought for as a new gospel, a psuedoreligion tinged with newage health obsession, which, incidentally, is unhealthy.

[@ThePathOfEudaimonia]

​@@hast3033Veganism is just asking critical questions about the dominant culture of "carnism", in which people think they are automatically justified in exploiting, torturing, and killing other sentient beings for their own pleasure. Carnism is the predominant religion around our relationship to sentient non-human animals. Not veganism. It's so dominantly part of our culture at this time of human culture, that any critique of it is being seen as blasphemy. Why do you think people are still stuck in this carnist paradigm, and get so extremely defensive when vegans challenge this?

[@BugRib]

@hast3033 - Unhealthy? You should look into how many top athletes, including competitive weightlifters, are vegan. Also, it's pretty difficult to have any nutritional deficiencies on a varied vegan diet, with the exception of vitamin B12, which can be taken as a supplement.

[@eax2010EA]

I'm very impressed with the quality of this engagement. Thank you for your conversation.

[@GalenMelchert]

Ah beautiful! This is exciting. What you are so carefully laying out is precisely what I have come to know through my study and practice. Personally I would call it natural transcendence for the same reason I don’t call breathing “breathism”. It took 7 years to come into a sustained right relationship with my self and world and there were a few important factors that catalyzed this clear state of being. Would be happy to share in conversation.

[@TheVeganVicar]

Good Girl! 👌 Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

I had to come back here and say John this may be your #1 line of thought pod yet ! You guys are definitely on to something here that absolutely needs to flourish !

[@sduffy9766]

Thanks John

[@jeffbarney3584]

"They never gave us Fichte to read" . So true!

[@russellmason4722]

I like energy information and the pun energy in formation.

[@jeffbarney3584]

@51:00 Fascinating re measurement and ontological level up as reliable for measurement. John briefly alludes to spirit. I look forward to hearing about this. Right now seems a good tome to bring in the problem with a psychology that either tries to take measure of the soul from the level of the soul (Jung) or measures soul phenomena from below instrumentally via neuro-chemical reactivity.

[@pjaworek6793]

Great convo right from the start!

[@jeffbarney3584]

This is a very worthy because so needed project. There are many ways to talk about the duality and ya'll do a good job of it from subject/object to the Newton/Kant dichotomy. John hints at the solution early on as there not being a mediating factor. Although Hegel failed in establishing that mediating factor as did modern psychology as such the latter especially, is a child dualism. I think, if you add to the "metaphysical-onto-epistemological" the phenomenological you have the soul/self as ontological enjoiner of the dialectical process. As Zak Stein emphasizes in his metapsychology, a deepening subjectivity/ensoulment allows for ontological discovery in a participatory manner. If we can move past lip-service to the notion that the soul is real and has ontological weight as Matt Segall might say, we will also move past epi-phenomenalogical explanations for the self/soul and the duplicitous complaint about those explanations that all the while is underdetermining the lawful nature of soul including the self determined human soul (distinct, independent, isomorphic in relation to spirit (genesis) and physiologic (extended).

[@ClassPunkOnRumbleAndSubstack]

I think virtuously increasing access to mystical experiences relates to the topic of finding common ground between science and spirituality. And what I presently feel is incredibly important for science virtuously increasing the accessibility of mystical experiences, is virtuously exploring the relationship between the chemistry and biology of popular feelings experienced in drugless mystical experiences or higher states of consciousness, and how they relate to the chemistry, biology, and patterns in phosphenes or light or color seen in the "mind's eye", including studying why phosphenes seem to often appear spontaneously as though created by some outside force; and where phosphenes may be symbolically representing the positive feelings of the mystical experience from the individual's subconscious perception.. where there's a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"-perception of the feelings and the phosphenes. I'm not a scientist, but I'd consider myself a mystic in a similar sense to a biker that can't always get his motorcycle to work but has been on the road for over a decade.. and from my experiences, I think this avenue of scientific study could potentially lead to breakthroughs in being able to allow people, if they wish, to more easily bring about mystical experiences.

[@jeffbarney3584]

@23:00 ish. as relates to strong transcendence: This is crucial and it is crucial not to make the Kantian or Hegelian move and truncate reality axiomatically. One of the ways John insightfully undergirds the "strong" is his use of the word discovery. One of the questions that remains open to me is : Is reality a static backdrop that we discover or is reality A. extended by our transcendence? and B. is reality lawfully different in each dimension similar to the way plants, animals and humans operate within and out of different but mutually influential spheres. I like Zak's intimation toward this in his threefold Metapsychology where the transcendent, ensoulment and say earthly, are such mutually influential ontological realms out of which we derive differently appropriate conformity to those realities.

[@mohameddiouf3123]

Fantastic convo!

[@billg302]

Thank you so much for this series. Your analogy of a metaphorical straight jacket is extremely accurate, and I can feel it binding me, my philosophy, and my spirituality. I would love for you to include Richard Dawkins in this discourse because I would gain great knowledge to hear his explanation how all these organic cells, chemicals, molecules, and atoms coalesce to form the organic singularity. I would enjoy seeing his perspective on this without spiritual connotations.

[@throughhumaneyes7648]

Saw some of that passionate vervaeke during the convo, always warms the heart tbh. Sweet chat

[@RobtotheRyan]

These talks will be very useful I'm sure. Though-I would really like to see them address Peter Kingsley's work and incorporate it. Primarily 'Reality' & 'Catafalque'. I feel that until his work enters the conversation we haven't really dealt with what we need to in these incredibly complex times.

[@burtReynolds3]

i cannot wait for the next episode

[@jeffbarney3584]

I love the knocking up against the threshold of the "transjective" It is what esotericist sometimes describe as the Christ consciousness. That is the universally unique tapped into an ontological realm bordering sense bound conceptual life first experienced as the imaginal. This would not be as Gregg says a stitching together of ontologies but a disclosure as John mentions. It is interesting to note that this is a free deed and it will not just be visited upon us with the current predominant mode of being. Thank you guys! So helpful. A real service to a true need.

[@alexandrazachary.musician]

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle… what is men-ness? Yeah I’ve wondered that for most of my life (as a woman) 😂😂😂. C’mon John. Let’s have a few female wisdom keepers up on that bookshelf. I know there are plenty on the spines of books. How about a bust or two? No pun intended. 🎈🎈How about Jetsunma tenzin palmo? Hildergard von Bingen? Rabi’a al-Basri? Thanks to you both. This is juicy fun. 🙏🏽❤️

[@GrzegorzBrysiewicz]

another dia logos from those two gents? amazing. Thank you for all the hard work. It's been with me through difficult times.

[@ext_grace]

Good stuff. Very much what Ken Wilber has been writing about for decades.

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

I think that was what underpinned the Christian scientific revolution of the 16/17th centuries. For methodological reasons, naturalism is adopted in science, but for everything else, transcendence rules the world. Even the naturalism of 17th century science was freighted with Christianity. For example, a law of science made sense because there was a law-giver. Vervaeke is always reinventing the obvious.

[@jaime5434]

John I’d love to see you have a conversation with Richard Dawkins. I can’t help but imagine how interesting that would play out

[@brunischling9680]

No way. Dawkins wouldn’t be up to it.

[@jaime5434]

Your right. I've seen some recent interviews with Dawkins and I'm starting to think he's really not in his element outside materialism @@brunischling9680

[@brandis3309]

I so needed this. It's amazing how so much of JV's work has been right on time & synchronistic with my personal life & thoughts. Glad you're doing this series. Thanks guys.

[@jeffbarney3584]

@39:00 Another absolutely crucial moment. So well considered. I love Gregg's 3fold person description and John's intelligibility explanation. I would sort of following Gregg say there is a universally human a common human in dialectic with the individuating self as the mediating reality incorporating (in the sense of embodying and in the sense of secreting/absorption) the universal and universalizing that which is common such as difference and sameness.

[@Janaesp12]

It becomes easier to address philosophical positions when we recognize that there are half-truths in everything. Even representation (epistemology) has a half truth, for the idea of a chair in my mind is not the actual chair but a representation of the chair. Now, conformity (epistemology) is also be true in that the idea of the chair in my mind shares (conforms with the actual form of the chair (under the condition that I am correctly perceiving and correctly conceiving the object), as ideas/forms transcend space and time and physical medium. We still need to keep representationalism (and perhaps more in the classical sense than modern) to distinguish between the idea (form), the form of the chair, and the composite of matter and form, the form and actualized material chair (Aristotelian distinctions always so helpful), of which conformity makes no distinction. Also this idea of "interpenetration" between subject and object is problematic. For how can one be wrong if there was no independence and separation between the two? While conformity may be the goal, if we place this in the context of "interdependence" then how can we know contents of our own mind when the boundaries are blurred? This obfuscates individual agency and autonomy and the existential need to take ownership of our minds to learn the difference between foolishness and wisdom without its entanglement to the external/environment. A hard distinction between self and other is required.

[@jessemontano762]

Bro. Good evening, from southern California

[@davidmccoy6888]

Start with 'person' in its linguistic sence. First person 'I' is the foundation of personal consous experience. "You" is intersubjective culture, the primary soure of the symbols your mind operates on. "It" is the third person objective science viewpoint. The open secret is that to give yourself the strongest foundation in reality you need to see that each viewpoint is one leg of a tripod, no one of the three being reduced to any of the others but each contributing to grasping on a higher level how each informs the other.

[@KingNigelthegreat]

It is my design you try to rob and rape me and eventually I give you iT and thats all. It my baby picture basically to show you live under it. I will it and im higher than it and your I I pull that out or box you in with the language I. You do Torah backwards and dont know what a ruler is …3Then four great beasts came up out of the sea, each one different from the others: 4The first beast was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man, and given the mind of a man.

[@markcounseling]

13:42 This vacillation is known as "the two extremes" in Buddhism. Beautifully said though!

[@RichBehiel]

Looking forward to seeing more of this series! Let me know if you want to someone to bounce ideas off of with regards to physics.

[@F--B]

What John does here (and elsewhere) is to make a series of coherent connections drawn from a range of sources before smuggling in his own biases in the form of apparently natural conclusions. His colleague Brett Andersen is also guilty of this in his recent lecture series. I note a near complete lack of critical voices in the comments of either. While I'm here I'll also note that John has a habit of praising his interlocutor when he feels they've made a good point - "that's a great observation Gregg" - in the manner that a schoolteacher would praise a good student. This might seem like nothing, but I think it gives a clue to the way in which John approaches these dialogues (albeit unconsciously). I remember Dave Snowden talking about his dislike at someone doing this to him - "I didn't ask you to rate my comment" - realising, perhaps, it's subtextual implications. Like Peterson, Vervaeke has the kind of religious zeal that tends to attract acolytes - just scroll through the comments of any of his videos to witness gushing eulogies about the life-changing impact of his work. He may protest that I'm misunderstanding him or misinterpreting his motives, but I think this accusation could as easily be levelled at him - not that he misunderstands me, but rather that he fails to accurately understand himself. Having listened to a number of John's talks it generally seems that whatever argument his interlocutor advances has been prefigured and prevents no real threat to his position. Everyone is eventually unmasked as a covert neo-Platonist; which is to say that everyone is, in the end, contained within John's all-encompassing worldview.

[@KingNigelthegreat]

Nice try. Your view isnt all encompassing or omnipresent. I am. youre covert satan n dead. sent to AI

[@ThePathOfEudaimonia]

So many words, but I can't really distill the point you are making.

[@KingNigelthegreat]

@@ThePathOfEudaimonia he's Satan. The anti christ. I don't talk to him

[@jeffbarney3584]

1:07:00 Hegel tried to illustrate this mind world relation. He was missing the mediating reality because he underdetermined the self or the soul that lies between spirit and matter. A self by the way that exists by virtue (think Delueze) of thinking. He was trying as John is to address the Kantian problem but because he under theorized a soul ontology he was left without a sensibility in relation to the corporeal (in the sense that John mentions).

[@yoseftovshteyn]

where can i learn more about what goes on in Circling into Dialogos, and are there other experimental exercises that might indicate collective intelligence?

[@jeffbarney3584]

1:13:00 Powerful realization and the key is "being". It is being that allows for the mutually influential and it is being that transcends the need for argument for and evidence of. If this is so what the Christian mysticism was/is disclosing is inherent in reality not an argument for a belief system. If cognition is an iteration of reality so are all of the forms of human intimacy with self and other in intimate human relationship?

[@jeffbarney3584]

@26:00 the problem with energy/information is that it is speculative and it is not yet a true "bottom". What is energy? What is information? I would argue one needn't torture the origin because we have the origin outside of time as Deleuze points to in the virtuating reality. That is a reality that borders our linear trajectory in the physical sense world and which the plant world is a processual expression of within and without us. The great thing about holding the reducionist feet to the fire is the notions presuppose thinking which then turns out to be more like what John's reference could be seen to point to as energy and information entwined by a mediating self. That is to say Energic>Agentic

[@CaptainPhilosophical]

8:40 Promissory Science has been promising ro solve the quantum issue, origins of consciousness from matter, organic chemistry and life from a prebiotic chemical world. How many decades go by with no answers before there is an ontological change needed?

[@DamienWalter]

I have left the quantum consciousness for a moment just to say thanks!

[@jcoales1]

Thank you for this insightful video. I am very interested in the objectivity vs subjectivity distinction which you seem to suggest from about 1:03:58 has collapsed. I would love to read more about this but would definitely struggle with the Christian leanings of the book you recommend by Pickstock, do you have a more secular source? Also doesn't this ultimately lead you to a confrontation with the hard problem of consciousness which you deliberately avoided in awakening from the meaning crisis series? BTW I would love to hear a dialogue between you and David Chalmers on that :D

[@colorfulbookmark]

I feel similarly that I took my eyeglass off, it looks completely different look, so Dr.Vervaeke's taking his eyeglass equal feeling ^^ The appearance change would make different sense to people when people think about psychological aspect of person. I think Dr.Vervaeke mentions directly about certain dialectics as metaphor to tricky expression relating to it and it seems like what is sensitive when deliverant people feel against, anyhow I think it is inquiry how to feel about it, as he asks opinion for Henriques. so I can understand the meaning of this talk. I am feeling empathic to partially by other repliers who pointed out Dr.Vervaeke's mode changes (otherwise from when appearing Dr.Lex Pridman) I have a trust to Dr.Vervaeke, and I don't think his faith is against human values that does not lose respect for people who were perplexed. I myself am deliverant academic attitude, sometimes approve Banatan way of philosophy, this is because he gives chance to talk about ethics from gut and raw level to make impact, Dr.Vervaeke is far more good intention as he has given to people before. He is more faithful than Banatan ^^ He didn't give me deliverant purpose but I was so impressed when he says appeared Dr.Pridman channel, it is why I trust him as great intellectual ^^ Fan of him as I am for Dr.Peterson.

[@greetingsfromthestranger]

Extraordinary friend! Would love to have a brief conversation & share some complementary perspectives on this important direction/dialogue from the Vedic traditions, Trika (Kashmir) Śaivism, and the Sanskritic traditions around Consciousness ♾🌹🕊🙏🏽🕊🌹♾

[@PeterIntrovert]

Gregg described it in perfect way: 'epi-centrum of grounding'. :D

[@KRGruner]

Fantastic conversation, as usual with Prof. Vervaeke. One of the things I always point out when facing reductionists is that they do not even believe their own pronouncements. If I were to punch one of them in the face, they would undoubtedly protest, when by their own reductionist standards, they have no ground to. After all, I would not have violated any laws of physics, so what's the big deal? And if they say that from their subjective point of view they did not enjoy the pain, I could retort that from my subjective point of view, I did enjoy the experience (as a demonstration of their ignorance), and that in any case, "enjoyment" is irrelevant to the physical sciences (as are "good" and "bad," "moral" and "immoral" and we could go on). Reductionism is a dead end (especially given what we know about complexity theory, cybernetics, and emergence), and the correct road is the one Prof. Vervaeke is engaged in. This is so rare these days. Well done!

[@KingNigelthegreat]

so forcing duality and death on someone is how you find proof?

[@lizellevanwyk5927]

This: "There are real levels into which I can enter into a transjective conformity and when I move in my knowing to another level that requires me being at another level. Turning it around: when I transcend, I’m not just psychologically improving I’m now taking on the form - the structural functional organisation - that gives me epistemological and ontological access to the world that I could not have at this lower level, because reality is really levelled and knowledge is really fundamentally about a kind of conformity. And when you put this together what you get is:🤯self-transcendence is not just psychological improvement, it’s allowing for real epistemological truths about reality to be really disclosed. So there is disclosure of being that is exactly paired, and it can go the other way: the disclosure of being can draw me up. And this of course is the classic Platonic anagogy… " (1:11:17) Rebecca and I independently envisioned “an eye opening ceremony” for our upcoming pilgrimage. I think this is what we are seeking.

[@mcnallyaar]

Also, it would be very nice to hear an hour of Dr. Vervaeke simply talking about what comedy he enjoys the most. I'm gonna go on a limb and guess Monte Python. Kurt Vonnegut?

[@PrinzGreg]

Hi there, I have been taking notes while watching the video but I still have a hard time following. I thought I could follow this video series without needing a lot of previous knowledge. I would be glad if someone could help me out and close my knowledge gaps. 1. I have not found a conformity theory within philosophy, or the cognitive sciences - please enlighten me. 2. There are two books mentioned in the video; is there a short version of them to get a grasp on what they are about? I feel like having to read them + watching a bunch of other of John's videos misses the point of this series. Excuse me if I am wrong here.

[@DalbyJoakim]

This psyche-environment-wisdom transcendence model is perfect for any meaningmaking process - be it natural sciences, psychopathology, religion or arts! I think most intuitively can feel this way: that wisdom or awe and its spirit-of-transcending-it also requires tightened connections with real experiences. Experiences of reality together with deeper intuitions as well as newer transcended layers. Layers with information obtained from reality, through interacting with all its information channels, through all available skills. Skills that simultaneously strengthen, weaken, morph, become realized or must be left behind in the process of spiritual and natural awakening about the world and its meaning. But often we need to unlearn to grow new wisdom. That is not always so awesome. How can we transcend a legacy structuring of reality that no longer is relevant in the now and here without the old disappearing through real people funerals? Can we mourn legacy ideas now instead of needing to first wait for all their old champions to leave the scene? What role does prestige have when we share a common view of the meaning of this transcended meaning making process? I hope that legacy prestige in obsolete structurings of reality becomes completely obsoleted now. We need something much stronger - more spiritual - than the holding onto what once was wise but no longer is. Example unlearning: It makes more sense for me here to start with not believing too much in complicated ideas of a Big Bang etc, but instead in the more fundamental reason for existence of a universe at all: The connectednesses it can have through layering and structuring of itself in 4D. That it is the energy freed into higher level structurings by relaxations at lower levels while its extent increases that is the perceived Big Bang everywhere we project the 4D into a space-time. So that for us the chaotic and meaningless yields to the structured and therefore meaningful - as the structuring and layering emerges from it both being possible and reality. For us, the structuring steals entropy in a magical way, but in 4D, entropy is latent energy available for structuring of 4D itself. Nature wants structure by its nature of being 4D rather than just one space-time. Inspired by John Macken, John Williamson, Thad Roberts, and Bose-Einstein amongst many others.

[@KingNigelthegreat]

I destroyed your 4D into abyss because you rape and rob all same one source and entity for predictable image of death 00:59:53: Dr. Vervaeke introduces the concept of reality being layered in a bottom-up emergence and top-down emanation. 01:06:40: Conformity theory: how the principles governing the mind and the world mutually participate in the same governing principles.

[@watcher8582]

Dirac was writing on Quantum Mechanics + Relativity in 20's, and I suppose they stated trying to fuse it with General relativity in the 30's, so 50 years is an understatement.

[@quentissential]

In the 'abrahamic west', can we use the word 'transfigure' (i.e. with Owen Barfield's use of 'figuration' in mind) or 'metamorph' to describe the 'strong transcendence' you are arguing for via conformity, levels, transjectivity and conciliance at 1:10:52? What is the word outside of the 'abrahamic west'?

[@KingNigelthegreat]

i can. you cant. Youre not the one who transfigures. you the one against the Holy Spirit and Transfiguration heading to the abyss of consciousness aka flood and deluge. Mind prison. Married you to AI no spirit or soul

[@mostlynotworking4112]

How timely, just getting into Brendan Graham Dempsey's work and mentioned PVK to him

[@willgiorno1740]

Yikes somehow I missed the argument for a 'leveled ontology', can anyone help?

[@peterrosqvist2480]

Yes look up Neoplatonism and the Pathway to transformation UTOK conference

[@willgiorno1740]

@@peterrosqvist2480 thankyou Peter, that's great.

[@anakissedboyle3067]

I’m interested if there’s others, who have had the kinds of experiences they are speaking about ? I did, however I think for many people , it’s unlikely to have the world changing shift, unless there is some kind of deficit, need for change. As in, the previous, proposition, JV makes, about good feelings, coming, when our expectations are exceeded, means, a general, context of feelings exist. Transcendence would come about, imho, in certain contexts, of “importance “. When these experiences change our lives. I had a continuity of transcendent experiences, that spanned over 40yrs, in 4 meetings which were also all just chance.

[@brandis3309]

Same here. I'd love to hear others stories.

[@KingNigelthegreat]

YOure all having my sub experience like a knock off experience adulterated of what I am and do. I am the deficit. Missing link.

[@Bolden47]

Conformity from bottom and top or a 360 degree expansion and contraction of real time

[@mcnallyaar]

I also think it would be fun if Dr. Vervaeke went to the Barbie movie and made a reaction video.

[@_ARCATEC_]

59:20

[@honestabe1940]

It is time to speed up Evolution. It is time to leave, "Human", behind. It is time for a Reprograming!

[@leondbleondb]

Ah yes, the mystics of matter rise.

[@Bolden47]

No we’re cookin!! This is the way.. this is the true new age

[@trippyfolk7351]

Digital gold L.V.X

[@triplea657aaa]

I think the solution to most of these problems is just pragmatism.

[@chrisjudd-uc7sh]

The most helpful comment I can make to you to is to take on board the following. I am what is best called a heavy duty researcher and I look at many arguments / posits to explain our ontology. I see in the very words Transcendent Naturalism an obvious appeal (at least to me that is). However when I listen to your podcasts it must be pointed out there is far, far to much preamble and waffle before you make a pertinent point. Don't fool yourself that all the preamble and waffle was necessary it isn't. Looking at the transcript I could effectively delete I would guess 7/10ths of the content. Come on guys you have a great point of view here don't lose it by poor presentation.

[@DrukMax]

Science only answers "how it happens" not "why it happens"

[@afarwiththedawning4495]

Would any of you accept it and abandon it if technology was actually evil? The answer is no. Think about that...

[@christopherhamilton3621]

How would you prove ANY technology as evil? Can you provide an example?

[@projectmalus]

Oh, you mean if a tech like the three card monte, superimposed in various ways as a system of gain by trickery, was realized to be evil because of the objectification of self? This is already being done with respect to the patriarchy and people have given it up. Harder to do when it's the medical industry, but if you search "is bread good to eat" you'll find two general camps, the dietitian with a sole focus on nutrition, and an emerging internet related preventative element, which says to compromise. See how the engineer is put at the end, instead of the beginning? What that allows, what permissions are given by culture power object. How that can change, people quit smoking, processed sugar, bad food and so on, giving up alcohol transcendence when the carcinogenic nature is revealed, all these objectifying self as an inner 3 card monte. Realizing this as tweaking the culture power object over time by individual choice.

[@KingNigelthegreat]

@@christopherhamilton3621 I do and can. See iT? mine. tech. old days. Evil. plus. never had a meaning crisis. you all make that up because of me over the years. mark its

[@loringlaverty4166]

There was a split between science and religion in our civilizations history. The two cannot be put back together in bottle , the bottle has been broken. This is wishful logic.

[@_ARCATEC_]

F=MA + E=MC² : Through the novel algebraic calculus lens of Intellidoscope: we can broaden our perspective to take into account not only energy directly associated with mass but also energy directly associated with heat. This perspectival movement allow for a unity of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. "Hint form" E⁴C³FMA² Then we build up the full Intellidoscope form... Let •(()())• be a balanced nested parentheses to syntactically frame The coordinates of "XZY+Q" and "E" be Energy, "C" be the Speed of light, "F" be Force, "M" be Mass and "A" be acceleration. •Xe h( zc Fq(mAE) ZC (eaM)Qf zc )H eY• Also G = (GMm)/r² In "Hint form" becomes RGM² Then represented in full Intellidoscope form as •X ( z Rq(gm) Z (MG)Qr z ) Y• For further consideration bidirectional influence between heat and processes A²+M²+F²=H² H²+F²+M²=A² •Xe h( z Fq(mAe) Z (eaM)Qf z )H eY• Then by further constraining our "Hint equations" followed by full Intellidoscope expression. ME²+F²=HE² HE²+F²+ME² •Xe h( z Fq(mE) Z (eM)Qf z )H eY• We highlight the understanding that the equations capture the conversion or transformation of energy from heat energy to mass energy. It implies that heat energy, when combined with the concept of friction, contribute to the generation or manifestation of Mass.

[@KingNigelthegreat]

Math prison

[@KingNigelthegreat]

00:59:53: Dr. Vervaeke introduces the concept of reality being layered in a bottom-up emergence and top-down emanation. You hate that because I would always do that with the axiomatic spirit and future and then law and base foundation you tried to rob into platforms so I killed you all 01:06:40: Conformity theory: how the principles governing the mind and the world mutually participate in the same governing principles.