What is more enchanting than a world full of gods?

[@springinfialta106]

The Catholic church tries to have it both ways. There is the one transcendent God, but there are all of the saints such as St. Jude who is the patron saint of lost causes or St. Anthony who is the patron saint of Lost Things or St. Matthew who is the patron saint of tax collectors, etc. There is also the notion that God acts through his angels to cause things to happen in the world. There might be an angel keeping each electron rotating about the nucleus of each atom and preventing it from circling down into the center.

[@Revolutionary1449]

Could you do an episode with Keith Woods?

[@RoyalistKev]

No Feds.

[@Reformsqua]

A proliferation of Gods could be interpreted as revertion to a pagan psychology as outlined by Neumann in History and Origins of Consciousness

[@giusypelle7356]

Always glad to watch your videos.

[@champagnebulge1]

Thinking about how the far universe extends, and life on other planets, or even our own eons ago. Just a couple of things more enchanting.

[@SacClass650]

I am not surprised Sahlins falls short given his history of infatuation with indigenes. Indeed, his solution of introducing more gods compounds the issue and risks cultivating more insidious atomization. It seems to me that people are seeking a _necessary_ _being_ - and the "absolute ground" it provides.

[@Revolutionary1449]

In the Islamic paradigm, there are specific prayers and phrases for the most menial of activities. Entering the home, having a meal etc

[@sameash3153]

They stole that from the Jewish and catholic tradition

[@FadiAkil]

1:35 “The passivity of things deceives us: we manipulate nothing with impudence without hurting a god.” ― Nicolás Gómez Dávila.

[@lewreed1871]

I'm with you on the "search for the higher truth" as opposed to "immanentness". If you've never read Augustine, I'd highly recommend The Confessions. Excellent autobiographical account of his journey from Manichaeism via the neoplatonists to Christianity, with all the promise of a good story in his prayer: "Lord, give me chastity and continence, but not yet!"

[@millerman]

I've thought about teaching the Confessions at MillermanSchool.com. Maybe eventually. First read it 20+ years ago.

[@gpxavier]

Would you rather have innumerable immanent gods but no transcendent absolute, or the latter without any of the former? I too would lean to the second option. Though the first has great attractions, my sense is that in such a scenario one's own ego becomes, de facto, the absolute.

[@johnruplinger3133]

St. John of the Cross' (esp "Dark Night of the Soul") gives a path for the highest Mysticism (lit. study of the "secrets" or hidden things of God), which also 'reenchants' the world more deeply and at the same time gives the key to understanding ALL other mysticisms (without exaggeration). No "higher" wisdom/ understanding comes within light years of St. John; of that I am certain. It is also quite real and true though I don't mean to convince you; I just know it from experience, far more reliable than visions, locutions, trips, etc as well. Many other books are helpful to understanding him -- very hard to grasp even if one is on John's path. Just a tip there. It's an entirely 'nother level of Mysticism (also Theresa of Avila), and I've studied a lot of mysticism and have a deep understanding in these matters, really not entirely by choice.

[@brendangolledge8312]

I've already thought a great deal about meaning. I believe I've basically solved the problem. Starting with Descartes's skepticism, and conclusion "I think, therefore, I am", I developed a metaphysics where absolutely all experience whatever can be decomposed into factual (coming from the senses), rational (coming from the mind), and valued parts. You need those 3 parts, because none of the parts can be derived from any of the others. In other words, you can't derive sensory information from pure logic, you can't prove any value proposition from only sensory information, etc. Emotions are not a fundamental aspect of our experience, because they are derived from values. Change your values, or your perception of events, and your emotions will also change. Values are arbitrarily asserted. For instance, if I assert, "I like vanilla better than chocolate", and if I believe it, then it will be true. All values whatever are arbitrarily asserted, or else derived logically from other values that are arbitrarily asserted. So, in a certain sense, everyone is utterly free to pick whatever values they choose. There is a danger in this, however, in that one can choose value propositions that are inconsistent either with sensory information or with itself (meaning that the value is internally inconsistent). In this case, the dishonest value makes it impossible to honestly understand things relating to that value. Otherwise, you can arbitrarily assert values without danger. For instance, I could look at the stars and say, "The stars are beautiful. Seeing them alone has made the day worth it," and if I believed it, it would be true. I could likewise declare, "I have done well to share this info with other people, even if they do not read it. I have done a good thing," and it will be true if I believe it. I like to ground my value judgments in objective things if I can (this is usually impossible). One such grounding is that if a thing chooses values that are self-destructive, then neither that thing nor its values will tend to propagate. If I want my way of being to flourish, then I ought to pick values that will make that possible. Now, this does not prove that self-destructive values are bad, only that if I value survival and consistency, then I ought to value things in a way that will cause a flourishing of my own life. Taking an enlightened view of self-interest, I understand that I am composed of a body, mind, and "heart" (corresponding to sensory, intellectual, and valued experiences), I am a cell within a social body, and an instantiation of my genes participating in the process of evolution. I also like to think that if there is a God, then he made the world the way he likes, and I can learn to see beauty and purpose in the world by looking at the world the way it is, and what opportunities I have in my life. Anyway, this line of thought leads in a quite straightforward manner to most traditional moral sentiments, such as "eat healthy, exercise, learn, don't kill, don't steal", etc. I've written books on these subjects, but it is hard to convince most people to even read 1 page. I believe part of the problem is that whereas most marketing techniques focus on convincing the target that you can satisfy their values (such as making them richer, sexier, smarter, etc), I am asking the reader to change his values. This is a hard sell. Most people do not want to become other than what they are now, but prefer instead to satisfy their current desires as quickly as possible.

[@johnshaplin]

Philosophy begins itself as an exegesis of symbols and myths, it inaugurates the question of meaning and is the foundation of meaning, in Paul Ricoeur’s terms, in the conflict between the hermeneutics of faith and the hermeneutics of what he provisionally calls suspicion

[@iankclark]

If you're searching, read The Matter With Things by Iain McGilchrist.

[@hallvardjrgensen2452]

Or also DB Harts new book.

[@swipesomething]

Speaking of "meaning crisis" what do you make of John Vervaeke's work?

[@millerman]

I'm not too familiar with it but from the little I saw it seemed to me that the importance of political philosophy was missing from the conversation, whereas I believe Strauss (Leo) was right to put it at the center of our attention. However I admit again that I'm only barely familiar with Vervaeke and I do like to see that he discusses Corbin, mysticism, etc.

[@magnumopus5661]

Exactly.

[@aorubio]

How were the active captions in-video achieved? free or paid?

[@millerman]

Paid (kapwing)

[@jeremyfirth]

Everywhere Present: Christianity in a One-Storey Universe by Fr. Stephen Freeman grapples with this question of living in an enchanted world and reveals the Orthodox Christian view, which is that we live in a sacramental universe. Every moment can be infused with meaning as we begin to see the world as it really is, and as we move closer to finding the kingdom of heaven that is in us.

[@ArmwrestlingJoe]

Michael do you personally feel psychedelics or the psychedelic experience generally has any role to play in this quest for a higher truth?

[@leroyhayes3251]

The first book is like the Kami of Shintoism. The other book seems to be like the quest for the grail. I’m much more of a “great work” grail guy. Although seeing spirit in all things isn’t necessarily a bad idea.

[@MikkiVee2]

Read “The story of a soul” by St. Therese of Lisieux.

[@mikehutchinson4826]

A world full of immanent gods that point us to their transcendent forms is more compelling

[@oumod_]

Eminence < Transcendence

[@Honziku]

Immanence?

[@oumod_]

@@Honziku no

[@Nchallah-u6z]

Only a lion can make new values.

[@ericchristen2623]

A world full of good gods is more charming...

[@DJWESG1]

No, people dont need gods, religion's or cults. We just need healthy communities.

[@mr.coolmug3181]

Where do healthy communities come from?

[@Sojourners_Path]

God, one God comprising three Persons is Himself the model community. Notwithstanding while we can comprehend cows have multiple stomachs, as they are multi-stomach beings, we have one stomach… we are inherently different in that respect. God, being a multi-person being created us in His image, yet with some distinct differences… we are mono-personal beings… who link up together as a multi-personal matrix to reflect the genius of the Uncreated One…. This is why we even have an instinct for communities, and we were placed in a world with its orders and models conducive to that yearning. It’s the nature AND nurture woven together from the very beginning.

[@DJWESG1]

@Sojourners_Path if you are unable to use the word "society" then just say that. You don't have to replace society (something that is knowable) with a god (something that is unknowable). The rest of the world doesn't need to play your game.

[@Sojourners_Path]

@ insisting God is unknowable is actually a game I refuse to play. Consider the volumes of unreliable information on the internet about ANY given topic… Reasonable people acknowledge the inevitable quagmire that humanity has to LEARN how to navigate that to reliable understanding. UNREASONABLE people see that monumental task and throw up their hands and say “unknowable”. God Himself is subsumed in that fact, but has absolutely set the criteria for how to be known. Furthermore He has allowed this murky environment to reveal what is in our hearts and what we will choose to do with the vapor of our lives. Please consider these deeper thoughts and sincerely reach out for Him through the muck and mire… for this is how He has chosen to be found, and criticizing Him for His ways will only reveal the rebellion and hubris that has you in your own way. Consider seeking God on His terms rather than your own before making lifelong decisions with eternal consequences.

[@DJWESG1]

@@Sojourners_Path odd, you certainly seem hell bent on playing it with me. Pls stop bothering the gods, they have too much on their plates to have to worry about what you think.

[@LittleCheka]

Giving thanks to "higher" beings seems like neurotic behaviour based in feeling like our own existential affirmation isn't good enough - it should be good enough! We have to rely on ourselves and build stronger.

[@nicholasfevelo3041]

One God.

[@Wingedmagician]

The holy trinity. Christ, Buddha and Philosophy.

[@nicholasdasilva9]

I highly recommend freemasonry for men who are looking for a higher level of mystery in their life

[@10.6.12.]

Radical relativism is not enchantment