Youtube comments of Luke Thompson (@WhiteStoneName).

  1. That Upton Sinclair quote is one of my favorites. "It's hard to get a man to see something when his salary depends upon him not seeing it."
    129
  2. This was absolutely wonderful. This the the best Pageau that I’ve heard. Thank you, all. Thanks for posting it, Dr. Peterson.
    73
  3. This is the most important discussion of Jordan’s “Second Wave”. Not because of the content or facts per se , but because of the spirit and kind. Let’s hope this pattern/spirit increases.
    53
  4. His three options at 9:30 are good. Really. 1) Consciousness is explained in terms of matter (the brain). (Materialism) 2) Matter is explained in terms of consciousness. (Panpsychism). The brain is explained in terms of consiousness 3) They are two separate things (Cartesian dualism). Or All reality is relational. And ontology precedes epistemology. But of the three, #2 is by far the most rational. Sorry, materialists. To explain being, you need dynamism. Base ontology has three options: Hard Monism, Hard dualism, or a third which is a more dynamic and fluid (relational) version of the first two.
    51
  5. The best book on this topic is Owen Barfield’s “Saving the Appearances”, but…that book is HEAVY. He talks about the nature of perception and how it works and how phenomenon appear to us and then how we think about the phenomenon.
    46
  6. This is perhaps the best and most succinctly I’ve ever heard Pageau talk about the most important things. Absolutely awesome, Jonathan. Bravo. ❤
    42
  7. I’m onboard with the need of the documentary “what is a Christian?”
    26
  8. Subjective appreciation of beauty exists. But so does Beauty. “Beauty will save the world.” - Dostoevsky
    24
  9. There are very important reasons why Jordan Peterson won’t give straight forward answers to historical-critical questions about the resurrection, imo. He is much more concerned with what does it MEAN and how should one LIVE who truly believes in the resurrection. He not interested in parroting the “right answers”.
    24
  10. Close for me as well. I love how Lex really pushed back on him at various times. Jordan speaks with so much passion that he can easily be misunderstood.
    22
  11. Lawns are so dumb. I'm with you. Get some goats and a garden and turn that lawn into permaculture. I have a lawn. Leaves in shame.
    19
  12. 24:55 JBP outlines objectivism and its buddy philosophical materialism here well. It's deistic and nominalistic, and when the collective imagination sees the world this way, it leads to a world of dead objects and eventually dead people.
    17
  13. Wonderful. I love Fujimura. Pumped to see him here.
    12
  14. I've been calling this kind of phenomenon hyper-Gnosticism. The material world is illusory and bad, the mental/spiritual/idea world is superior and good. This is all downstream of "I think therefore I am."
    11
  15. Jump around, jump around, Gotta gotta get up to get down.
    9
  16. How he speaks of alternate potentials and counterfactuals as if they hold equal weight to reality (what is) is telling. I think this kind of “analysis” is only possible in the abstract (non-real, at least…yet).
    8
  17. John, your response to Jordan's question from 34:00 - 35:00 is absolutely wonderful. Thank you.
    8
  18. I don't even know if she meant to do that. But, regardless, Rogan and Whitney missed it. Annie is really quick and funny. So great.
    8
  19. High school should be a general liberal arts education. It always was before modern public education. Check out classical ed. That’s what we had for most of Western civilization before the 20th century. The trivium: grammar, logic, rhetoric (poetic). Reading classics. History, philosophy, literature. This should be done in K-12. Secondary education should be specialized training.
    8
  20. 50:00 what you see & hear depends a lot upon where you’re standing. It also depends on the kind of person you are. - Lewis Also, when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.
    8
  21. 4:20 - 4:30 "Capitalism is the greatest economic engine ever devised, but it has to be harnessed with social purpose." I'm not sure this is possible. True believers will always assume it is. "We just have to use (fill in the black) better or rightly (more money, more oversight, better people, whatever)." The goal of capitalism is to make capital. Ethics is a horse of a different color.
    7
  22. Hey, Christian.
    7
  23. “They’re smart, but they’re not wise.” 100%. I’d love you to flesh that out in a podcast, Joe. Have some religious people on your podcast. Some theologians, some philosophers. Talk about what wisdom IS for 2-3 hours.
    7
  24. Really appreciated this, John. I’ve been following Paul for a while now, and I’ve never heard him get this personal about Orthodoxy. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it was a different spirit than his other talks…more laid back or transparent about the details of why people are finding Orthodoxy life-giving compared to the vanilla, individualistic Evangelicalism (false) “smorgasbord”, the faux-a la carte of (one) option(s). Oh, and the universality question was great. Conversionist religion cannot have a proper and healthy relationship to personhood. #1…that’s not how people work. And #2 it’s a denial of unity in multiplicity. It’s rooting faith in abstractions and self-identity around ideas…ewww.
    7
  25. This is one of my favorite convos that I’ve heard in a while. Thank you men. 🙏🏼
    6
  26. His internal monologue: “Keep it general. No specifics. Don’t get personal. Keep it general…” repeat
    6
  27. 23:07 Love it. Whoever wants to become a Christian must first become a poet. St. Porphyrios
    6
  28. 1:24 Radiohead
    5
  29. Exactly. He's talking about something deeper. Joe is a philosophical materialist and he doesn't understand his presuppositions. He's in a post-Cartesian world. He needs to read more ancient thinkers and philosophers..or talk to them. John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham. He's a nominalist, materialist...and he can't make sense of meaning, love, quality, etc. Quantitative vs. qualitative.
    5
  30. So…speculative realism is basically reiterating trinitarian theology? Yes! “Deep calls to deep”. Exactly.
    5
  31. sebastian Sm When are scientists gonna catch up to theologians? 🤔😏 Read the beginning of Genesis. Dark energy? And an infinitely small, unobservable point which has negative, pushing/outward engergy...hmmm, like an infinitely overflowing Fountainhead of Being? 😇🤪😁 Or Divine Simplicity and the ineffability of God?
    5
  32. 36:50 "Nobody quite spoke the language of my heart." No one does (or can).
    5
  33.  @RedPhil87  100%. I thought of Dunning-Kruger, too.
    4
  34. A Christian would say that Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus. Also, even though some may have had a transcriptionist, doesn’t mean they didn’t write the text.
    4
  35. “We can’t just go back.” Yep. Further up and further in. Spiral dynamics. Tradition and apocalypse. Saving the Appearances. The impulse to simply go back AND the impulse to simply go forward untethered from the past are wrong.
    4
  36. 3:30 She didn’t come. She said she would and then didn’t. Family and responsibilities or something lame.
    4
  37. Hi. Neal told me about this... He said it really takes off at one hour in...TGrogan death blow.
    4
  38. 15:45 “I don’t think it’s fundamentally Christian. It’s enlightenment thinking.” Amen, brother. ❤
    4
  39. All truth (meaning) is personal. The objectivist world kills meaning.
    4
  40. “God becomes man.” comes with a lot of baked-in assumptions about time and ontology which don’t cohere with a proper Christian theological understanding of the Incarnation. Essentially, I think it is more correct to think of the Incarnation as the center of time and being from which everything else flows. Which will make zero sense with the assumption of the linear progression of time and mechanistic causality.
    4
  41. Beautiful as hell. Good on ya, Billy. ❤
    4
  42. 2:07:50 ideas as lifeforms: Nonmaterial seeds, material bodies/structures. Immaterial-material.
    4
  43.  @fritzschnitzmueller3768  it’s difficult to know the reasons why someone does (or does not do) something, even when you’re that person themself.
    4
  44.  @convertedphilosopher  people are going to think you’re serious.
    4
  45. 12:00 “the totality of the human being as body and soul” What/who is Christ’s Body? Where is it? I agree 100%, Christ’s body is not merely equivalent to those who self-identify with it *in their minds*.
    3
  46. 49:25 “Science is just data.” False. Consciousness. Salience. Value hierarchies. Why do you focus on what you focus on? Listen to some more Jordan Peterson. He’s the best modern intellectual to show this, but most don’t put in the time to follow his breadcrumbs.
    3
  47. 57:00 Welcome to the Incarnation.
    3
  48. Maybe we needed to eat from the Tree of Life (the Cross) first before we ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We can’t know properly, until we become fully human and die with Christ.
    3
  49. 46:45 yes, this is exactly what that is. The spirit is completely the same. My ideas about myself, per se, and my self identity to those ideas is what defines who I am. It’s the elevation of the Egoic intellect to God.
    3
  50. 31:28 “*Job* and the whale” Thanks for the correction, Jamie. Also, maybe study and/or read the most significant book in the Western world before you start reading debunking articles/books of the Bible.
    3
  51. 55:50 The rationalists atheists *learned this from the Christians*.
    3
  52. 34:40 I LIVE SURROUNDED BY FAT?! How dare you body shame me?! Chauvinist.
    3
  53.  @christiantgolden  would love to. Things have been well. The embodied life has been pretty full lately. But good.
    3
  54. 22:24 "I think it comes from dualistic thinking." Bingo was his name-o.
    3
  55. I'm fully on board with you, Chris. I feel exactly the same way.
    3
  56. John, your section on “potential being real” and the pencil illustration is about the recovery of the feminine (hospitality, space, potential, the womb) vs the dead world of deistic or materialistic Newtonian laws of physics. This is panpsychism or even better panentheism, mixed with opening/withdrawal.
    3
  57. Scientists are the priests of the modern age. But they should mostly stick to science and leave the philosophy & ethics to philosophers, ethicists, & theologians. They usually make very poor & philosophically blind arguments for the morality of scientific “progress”.
    3
  58. Who is this guy you’re talking about?
    3
  59. 20:40 re "is this the new unity of religion (global religion)?" What does unity without eliminating multiplicity look like? Christ...sure. How does that look for religions in the world today? It's not identitarian replication-ism. imo. For me, Christian perennialism is a non-specific hope for the reconciliation of all things in Christ in God without coercion or manipulation or identitarian conversionism. It must respect the choice/belief/thinking of the person (who is not an isolated, autonomous individual).
    3
  60. 10:30 maybe the shaman is A great physician of our souls.
    2
  61. Blame Sarah for all the comments.
    2
  62. 9:00 Mike Benz on Rogan
    2
  63. Cat piss is a wine flavor prominent in Sauvignon Blanc. True. It's not really cat pee, but close and awesome-er. And quality Burgundian wines are "barnyard"-y. It's not shit..but like the shit smell if it were grapelike and delicious. A lot of great food flavors, esp fermented foods, are funky. And delicious.
    2
  64. 34:40 personalism
    2
  65. 2:20:34 Eric: “right now we have a crisis because nobody knows what to believe.” “I am sorry I cannot explain the thing to you," he answered; "but there is no provision in you for understanding it. Not merely, therefore, is the phenomenon inexplicable to you, but the very nature of it is inapprehensible by you. Indeed I but partially apprehend it myself. At the same time you are constantly experiencing things which you not only do not, but cannot understand. You think you understand them, but your understanding of them is only your being used to them, and therefore not surprised at them. You accept them, not because you understand them, but because you must accept them: they are there, and have unavoidable relations with you! The fact is, no man understands anything; when he knows he does not understand, that is his first tottering step--not toward understanding, but toward the capability of one day understanding. To such things as these you are not used, therefore you do not fancy you understand them. Neither I nor any man can here help you to understand; but I may, perhaps, help you a little to believe!" - George MacDonald “Lilith” Also, Dr. Iain McGilchrist. Eric doesn’t understand quite enough that the Right Brain is the Master. Imo. Edit: 1:05:40 Eric: “The problem is, Terrence, that you desire to go immediately to what this means…people don’t even know what this is.” No one ever knows what anything is. Cart before the horse. Although, desiring greater precision (what I think Eric is arguing toward) is a good thing. And he’s correct about Terrence’s strengths and weaknesses.
    2
  66. 1:49:50 It's not focus, Lex. Focus is a matter of the will. What JBP is describing as that "dead quiet" is *attention*. Simone Weil (and Iris Murdoch) spoke of attention as the "just and loving gaze". It's akin to admiration and respect and is involuntary. It's deeper than the mere intellect and the will. It's a space--related to hospitality. 1:50:54 Yep. Jordan just called it attention. I'm not sure if he's explicitly familiar with "the just and loving gaze", but he intuits it for sure. And he adds "worship" and "communion" right after...yes.
    2
  67. 1:13:08 "What the Egyptians conceptualized was that the proper Sovereign was the proper balance between foundational tradition & dynamic vision."
    2
  68.  @BLEEP-1  hahaha. 🤞🏼😰
    2
  69. Beautiful the way that this ended.
    2
  70. For me this conversation should really start with a pre-question before one dives into "what do I think about perennialism?": Is there one reality? Is there a higher, fundamental unity behind all difference/distinction? The one time that I spoke with Jonathan Pageau during a Q&A on Paul Vanderklay's Friday q&a thing, I summarized Christianity & Christian theology as "Henosis by kenosis". This is also deeply connected to the Incarnation and truth as a Person (Jesus Christ), not truth as abstraction. How does being work? What is existence? Is there existence outside of Christ? These questions are essential to the perennialism debate. John, did you ever watch my personal video on perennialism vs religious pluralism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImlGzFCOjM&t=409s
    2
  71. 3:50 You can be right and be wrong or be wrong and be right. Why would someone say this right here? The either/or binary judgements are an issue. There is, I think, a distinction to be made between discernment (necessary to be in the world as an agent/actor) and a totalizing judgement (which inhibits us from the openness to being wrong, even if we are right).
    2
  72. 1:28:00 re: the dogmatic misuse of the traditions I call this confessionalism and it's the precursor of identitarianism and ideological possession. Most modern atheists conflate confessionalism with religion and religion proper is what binds. It's the mystical unity behind all things that are.
    2
  73. Self-identifying as a perennialist, or seeing perennialism as true is different than the choice to stand outside of a particular path. Choosing the a la carte religious buffet option(s) is a path, not one that I'd recommend, but...
    2
  74. 54:15 “the evidence speaks for itself.” Again. No. It precisely doesn’t do that. Consciousness. Value hierarchies. There are infinite facts. How do you determine which are valuable? Which do you focus on & why? Because of more facts? That’s a logical regress. There is a judger, making decisions based on what they value, which has subjective and objective components. “No man is an island.” You need Jordan Peterson back on. But maybe through in Rupert Sheldrake and Iain McGilchrist as well. If you don’t understand how consciousness and perception work at a fundamental level, you’ll extrapolate your science incorrectly.
    2
  75. Exactly! I thought of the Firas conversation as well.
    2
  76. Who would you never have on again, Joe? Just bed faith actors? Also, think about “bad faith” for a while. It’s a very telling phrase.
    2
  77. Joe, you really should have a prominent, broadly respected Christian scholar/thinker on JRE. Bishop Barron NT Wright Rowan Williams Alastair McGrath Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware Father John Behr
    2
  78. Michael Gagliardi maybe. Institutionalized scholarship is kinda bogus in any formal field to a large degree.
    2
  79. 13:38 “culture free”. There isn’t such a thing. But Christ is indeed *universal*, but he lived in A culture and A time and A place. To be is to be embodied.
    2
  80. 1:01:00 Christ and AntiChrist The road to Hell is paved with Good intentions. Intentions and will are fine, but they are able to be twisted and deceived.
    2
  81. 7:00 That's the positive take on the spirit of the Orthobro. I see it much more akin to what Brad Jersek called "Eastern Rite Evangelicalism". At its worst, it's the spirit of the colonialist Culture War trying to colonize Orthodoxy. And it's impersonal and rationalistic and anti-personalist knowing (therefore against true knowledge).
    2
  82. 35:00 “you’re gonna get the highest numbers you’ve ever done, maybe by a factor of ten.” lex laughs
    2
  83. 1:51:53 “What are the conditions under which someone can say they’re a Christian and be either lying or wrong and what are the conditions under which someone can say that I am NOT a Christian and be either lying or wrong?”
    2
  84. I would say “personal”. The subjective/objective divide is a red herring or a distraction at best, imo. All perception (and reality) is rooted in the seer/the perceiver. This is what Berkeley meant by his famous question, “if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” This is the hard problem. See Jordan Peterson’s new convo with Pageau, Vervaeke, and Bishop Barron. Or His video of mainly Pageau right before that. It’s really difficult for a philosophical materialist to see this, but the consciousness/the perceiver is necessary for reality to exist.
    2
  85.  @nierlindin1006  What is non-perspectival space-time? Where/how do these air waves vibrate? And how do we know?
    2
  86. 23:56 “memory is the purveyor of reason.” Samuel Johnson
    2
  87. "parables are narrative koans" - Vervaeke Love it.
    2
  88.  @processrauwill7922  haha. Good to see you.
    2
  89. Made me more of a fan than I've ever been. Good on both of you.
    2
  90. 45:40 What's a human being? A creator. Not a robot. Not an identical replicant. Sometimes, I wonder if what we're doing is "self"-creating ourselves as a training ground.
    2
  91. 19:15 "So we would need to dissolve our human self for our divine self." Why not "flesh" (perishing) body/self for the divinized (eternal, unperishing) body/self? Merton's True/False selves (or from what I know St. Maximus spoke to the proto-conscience and our personal angel and demon, right and left hand, pulling and pushing us in different directions...?) For I have been crucified with Christ. I feel like you guys are framing this all and talking about it in a bulverist way (assuming the answer and arguing backwards). You should have a Christian perennialist on live to give the alternate takes.
    2
  92. 35:00 “I’m Orthodox, so I don’t believe in Original Sin the way you layer it out.” Amen.
    2
  93. Go talk to Rogan about all this, John. I’d watch.
    2
  94.  @marcher8023  In that they both expose a mystical Christianity. The difference is that this is normative in the East, and sporadic in the West. imo. There are many great mystics in the West, but the dogmatics of the West are not by nature mystic. This has always been the East's beef with scholasticism.
    2
  95. 48:30 re: knowing truth & Spinoza. These are liminal moments. Error manifesting truth to us. Transcending our maps/interpretations of what is. Man, I’m gonna be at Thunder Bay with Vervaeke in a couple weeks and I hope that I get to talk to him about a narrative vs reality or narrative vs nomological. This is something that I’ve been trying to talk to Paul Vanderklay for years.
    2
  96. 21:28 Rogan: “By the grace of... [stutters] the grand Universe plan.” How many years before he can freely just say God?
    2
  97.  @brainderp808  It's really difficult to go back and look at the world through the eyes of a pre-modern. I would say impossible, preciously because of what he's saying. "What you see and hear depends a lot upon where you're standing and the kind of person that you are." "lens-based", paradigm thinking is rooted in a post-epistemology, Cartesian world, imo. If we tried to look back through ancient eyes, we would make TONS of anachronisms. We only have our eyes. This is the myth of objectivism that objectivists don't see.
    2
  98. Cognitive science and the difficult AI is having with vision also points to this. Consciousness selects what we see. You don't see everything. You see what you want. And what you want is complex, much of which is rooted in millennia of evolution.
    2
  99. I know people may call it entertaining, but...rude is probably more accurate. Dang.
    2
  100. Charles’s parents fasting with him is beautiful. ❤
    2
  101. 1:30:50 Pageau "You don't need an explicit ethic. you don't have to spell it out." JBP: "Why not?" Pageau: "Because you don't have to tell someone how to go downstairs unless they can't do it." So good. Yes.
    2
  102. 2:18:56 re: America refashioning the entire World in its image. This is what Alexander Dugin is taking about in his critique of the cultural monolith (which is part of globalist capitalism) which is Liberalism. His whole series of noomakhia is essential to understanding the War in Ukraine, imo. It’s anti-diversity really. Very Doublespeak/Orwellian.
    2
  103. 27:45 - 31:49 on Aestheticism & contentment vs Consumerism & Discontent and The Machine Or Technological Babel as I call it. Which is what the worship of the Machine and Consumerism leads to...Serving God or Mammon. The worship of Mammon leads to anti-communion and its corollary mis/discommunication and a loss of meaning and purpose and life (the isolated, autonomous individual). This is all connected to relational ontology and the centrality of the Person. Persons aren't meant to consumer. We are meant to commune to create. The Creator is making creators. Creators aren't consumers. Hence we need aestheticism.
    2
  104. "The only fiction book that I've ever bothered to work through." blink, blink "There is no such thing as truth. People who really know what happened aren't talking. And the people who don't have a clue, you can't shut them up." -Tom Waits
    2
  105. "Factory-farming religion" is a good way to describe transactional "religion". Jesus called this Mammon. True religion is to care for orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
    2
  106. I’ve left two comments about Fr Peter’s comments about the “intellectual exclusivity of Christ” at 5:10 - 5:30 but they keep disappearing. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s because I left a link to a First Things article Traditio Deformis by David Bentley Hart on poor exegesis, election, and Romans 9. Essentially: the pattern is election FOR future inclusion.
    2
  107. 4:40 The answer isn't pumping money anywhere. Love and self-sacrifice for the other. That's it. It's simple, but difficult.
    2
  108. "All models are false. Some are useful." - George Box
    2
  109. 1:09:05 Re: The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil See the Book of Job. The solution to eating from the Tree of KoG&E is the Tree of Life, the Cross. We are not called to judge Good and Evil, until we have faces, until we are a New Creation and grown. Then we will be called to judge many things. When we have put on Christ. Those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
    2
  110.  @EmilyTodicescu  perfect.
    2
  111.  @johnheers6220  the “nonspecific” hope is the mystical Christ who, in me/us, is becoming into the fullness of the Bride of Christ. And then, imo, that will fractals radiate out to the entirety of the Cosmos. It’s not some nebulous, kumbaya, “whatever you want, man” thing. It’s a radically personalist ontology and respect of true belief/faith which is necessarily personal. This isn’t anti-incarnational. It just doesn’t presuppose specific framings (intellect, maps, potential idols of the mind), specifically the linear progression of time & choice and how salvation/belief/atonement work. My friends and I tried to talk about this recently (we always are, more or less, or something related). Think the Butterfly effect and quantum indeterminacy. https://youtu.be/RggambHqDwY
    2
  112. 56:00 Re: fences "The law is just if you use it lawfully." 1 Timothy 1:8 Or another way that I've thought about it is Galatians 3: the law is a guardian, a tutor, a pedagogue to lead us to Christ. Combine that with 1 Corinthians 8 & 13 (the whole book really). "We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him." All true knowing is personal (not subjective, not objective). The systematizing of ethical boundaries and fences and gatekeeping is anti-personal. It's the spirit of the Machine to be frank.
    2
  113. 16:50 "...and I should stop judging them." Yes. May it be for all of us. And not just stop judging other Orthodox. Stop judging everyone.
    2
  114. 50:50 - 51:00 "part of the drama of salvation, which in the Bible is always cosmic, not just human, not just personal." The personal is cosmic. You are talking of individualism, not personalism. One cannot, and ought not, divorce the person from the whole.
    1
  115. 30:30z it’s not a uniting book. It’s a uniting person.
    1
  116. 43:19 Re: Birth control Gabriel Marcel - The Sacral in the Era of Technology He uses that as his primary example of the dangers of technological interventionism.
    1
  117. Cormac McCarthy, my friend.
    1
  118. It’s not 24/7 culture war now?! The culture war is the right hand fighting/hating the left hand of the *same body*. What is that body? I’d say that it’s liberalism, a colonizing monoculture fighting for the authority within the Exlcusivist Religion of the Right Side of History. It’s identitarianism. If you don’t agree with my thoughts and opinions and abstractions, you are “outside” the acceptable limits of our religion. We need to get back to an apophatic religious substrate of an unspoken unity behind all multiplicity (difference).
    1
  119. “Where are the human beings?” Don’t do business with bodies (corporations or institutions) that are impersonal (anti-human).
    1
  120. 1:35:25 “Scientists, who can look at things from a completely non-emotional level.” Nope. They’re not logic robots. No one is. Have Jonathan Haidt on again.
    1
  121. 11:35 “ but here we are sitting in the physical trying to make sense of the unreasonable effectiveness of the thing that’s beyond which is mathematics…” There are many baked-in assumptions here. Even how the Bishop closes the clip is interesting. The person who created the Universe is a mathematician. Huh. Why? A more interesting question to me would be why do we think that mathematics is the best way to understand the universe? Or logic? There seem to be baked in assumptions and proclivities into that line of reasoning. Mechanistic causation maybe. Idk. Math and logic can indeed gesture toward beauty and other ineffable qualities. Why wouldn’t art or beauty or laughter or quality be more faithful guides? Or equally good? We have a huge proclivity to quantitative analysis vs qualitative apprehension or vision. “You can’t think yourself out of a prison made of thoughts.”
    1
  122. 1:26:03 “receive with meekness the Implanted Word (logos) eh in is able to save your souls.” Epistle of James
    1
  123. 30:45 George MacDonald “Lilith” ❤
    1
  124. I can’t believe Lex doesn’t talk about Alexander Dugin. If you don’t understand Dugin, or at least try, I doubt very much that you can accurately understand what/how Putin may think or be influenced. Mainly his ideas about dasein and multipolarity. From the little that I’m familiar.
    1
  125.  @nathankurtz5960  I see a body as a unity of a multiplicity. Which is necessarily rooted in logos, yes. Seeds of the Logos, logoi. So, in a sense, anything that has being or is alive, is participating in the "Only Existent One". This is where the game of who is in and who is out gets tricky. The perennialism question should be prefaced by a bigger question, imo. Is there a Unity behind all distinction? I left a longer comment in the Pt. 1 video about this.
    1
  126.  @MartaSpendowska  I agree. But there are many corresponding questions to that statement. Whose sacraments? Who decides which, when, and administrated by whom? Apostolic succession? Whose? Which authority gets to decide? Also, mysteries are by definition iconic and personal and non-static, non-monistic. The tendency to police boundaries is a tricky business and tends to be rooted in a couple things: conservative temperaments (whether individual or communal) AND the false-equivalence of a conservative temperament to fidelity to Christ. I'm using "conservative" in the broad sense. I'm not accusing you of this, necessarily. I don't know you. But it's very easy to answer questions with platitude-level answers. And, on one level, that is great. Platitudes are used and there for a reason. They are not arbitrary. They are a rule of sorts, but there are always exceptions to rules. Centers and fringes, and we ought not harvest or trim the fringes (the exceptions).
    1
  127.  @MartaSpendowska  I wasn’t intending to imply that the Sacraments and Mysteries of the Church are platitudes. I meant that positing them as a metric for who is and who is not in the Mystical Body of Christ can be a platitude-level answer with a lot of baked-in assumptions, for all disagreeing parties. I’m not familiar with Father Heers work or thinking. I’ve maybe seen one Protecting Veil video (which I don’t remember) and these two perennialism videos.
    1
  128. 12:00 re: nature of human beings…was it implanted and revealed or did it evolve?” Yes. I think St. Maximus and Chalcedon MEANS that the person is the center of reality (Jesus Christ and everything in Him as he is in the Father…John 17). And this is simultaneously emanating and emerging. Transcendent and imminent. Iconic. We don’t start with nature. Start with the person.
    1
  129. What about the long-term environmental cost of cheap goods? Pulling people out of poverty for one to three generations does no good for posterity if we destroy the planet. The way that we eat and dress ourselves and consume at large is not even close to being sustainable. Do what’s meaningful, not what’s expedient. We are outsourcing our problems overseas where we can’t see them through buying unethical products. Analyzing this with the one-variable of “trade with a communist government” is myopic.
    1
  130. What’s the answer if something isn’t working? More funding? Not necessarily. Sometimes things don’t work and no amount of money will fix it. Public education being one. (I’m not arguing to defund the police.) I’m just saying that throwing money at a problem will not necessarily fix it.
    1
  131. Duck eggs are awesome. They are the men to boy chicken eggs. Oily, meaty, fatty, dense--aka delicious.
    1
  132. Rupert Sheldrake (morphic fields and angels) is a missing piece of this discussion, imo.
    1
  133. By "ultimate meaning" 1:38:00, are you trying to say "objective"? Post-cogito, we live in a divided world: subjective/objective. It's a false framing, leading to this division with subjective and objective meaning. It's a nominalism/realism distinction, I think.
    1
  134. My favorite takeaway as well. I’ve heard Dr. Peterson say this before. But I had forgotten it.
    1
  135. 1:01:24 “How do you convince someone to do something (hard)?” Virtue, character—-aka collective religious substrate. It ain’t gonna happen through mere rational discourse. We are so much more than we know. Arguments are gonna make few people do hard things. Character will. Then the question is, “how do we develop a wide, thoroughgoing culture of people with deep character?” Again, a transcendent, historic religious substrate. Or as Yoram Hazony has said, “mutual loyalties”.
    1
  136.  @LJ7000  Not materially though.
    1
  137. 1:14:04 "Don't listen to my words. Listen to the Logos that gathers them together. 'All things are one.' - Heraclitus" Amen.
    1
  138. Don Sabi F. Yep. Same. I think that’s true, although I don’t know how deeply he’s ever gonna dive into the public eye again. Idk.
    1
  139. Hero. I agree. I really like Vervaeke. The last few Jordan Peterson convos were great. Pageau has been killin it lately.
    1
  140. Very great. Particularly the second half. Many of my fav topics. Thanks.
    1
  141. Yep. These kinds of objections/questions are good & important.
    1
  142. Sam Harris should really watch Jordan Peterson talk with Stephen Fry about the potential differences btw empiricism and rationalism. He (and ultimately even Fry) are both rationalists, in the end. The true choice is between mysticism and rationalism.
    1
  143.  @117Industries  good reply. Lots of great substance there. I don’t have the energy to respond in kind. But I’d love to talk to someone like you in a more long form way. You seemed like a very well-informed and reasonable person. Appreciate the comment.
    1
  144. 1:09:10 That's the dishonest (MoFo) PoMos. There are honest PoMos who don't play the same game they're critiquing. imo.
    1
  145. Death is the door to becoming truly human. Jesus Christ was the first truly human being, finished--the end of Creation.
    1
  146. 1:16:57 *individual*, not personal. A person is not equivalent with an individual. This distinction matters. A person is never an isolated, autonomous individual.
    1
  147. That’s a good question. A lot has to do with Heaven/Hell and judgement and “binding and loosing” or authority. If one is a universalist, ie believes that in the end, all people (and the entire Cosmos) will be “friends of God”, then the Church ends up being the Cosmos (Humanity and everything else).
    1
  148.  @onepiecemememan  I can see what you’re saying. And I think that can be true. It’s a problem with the impulse to name everything too narrowly and explicitly and systematically. But there have been and are many Catholic mystics who wouldn’t con belief. Mysticism is fundamentally personal and noncoercive. I’m not a Catholic btw. Just in case you’re wondering. I love the Paul Tillich quote “all institutions are inherently demonic.”
    1
  149.  @onepiecemememan  the problem is that the counterfeit always shows up to mimic the real. Christ begets AntiChrist in a sense. But AntiChrist will always use the individuals for its own ends/desires—apart from the will of the individual. Christ never would. And the Church should be like her Bridegroom.
    1
  150.  @onepiecemememan  I don’t think that organized religion has to always do that. Institutional religion…maybe. Probably? Full disclosure, I’m in the process of becoming an Orthodox Christian which I see as being intrinsically mystical, while only some of Western Christianity is mystical. Non-mystical Christianity is always gonna try and tell you what to think. And the attempt to control what someone thinks is a bad idea, imo. Interestingly, Karl Rahner, a Catholic, said, “the Christian of the future will be a mystic or not at all.” I love that quote.
    1
  151.  @dinadigiovanni4726  what does it mean to “believe”? The Greek word often translated “believe” is pistis. It’s about faith or faithfulness. Which is not mere affirmation of propositional statements. There is not easy consensus about what it means to believe in Christ and be a part of his Body.
    1
  152. My two cents about all of all of JBP's interruptions: There are two kinds of interrupting in a conversation (maybe more). The first is interrupting to say what I think, assert my own opinions & ideas. The second is an excited interruption of joy to ask questions, it's a following of the muse. Yes, one must be careful with their interruptions and we don't want it to get out of hand, but it's not necessarily a bad thing per se. I really think in this particular case, that those who dislike the interruptions do so because they are more left-brained and really like structure and systematic thinking. "I want everyone to clearly lay out their thinking in a highly structured way, so that I can see the forest through the assembly of the trees." vs. those who are more right-brained and are comfortable with many dangling, unfinished ends because they are inclined to see the forest first and don't care so much about the careful detailed painting of the trees.
    1
  153. 1:21:45 - 1:24:00 ish what John says is spot on. Wisdom is not knowledge and wisdom is communicated by communion and it’s necessarily personal. It takes a guide, a mentor, spiritual mothers and fathers.
    1
  154. 1:06:15 all meaning is personal.
    1
  155. Propositionalism came out of religious confessionalism post-cogito (post-automated individualism).
    1
  156. 0:50 “Science is also tested.” Theoretically. Reproducibility studies are not funded. Both individual and collective salience at the consciousness level is largely overlooked in science.
    1
  157. Callen, just go read Matthew 5. I mean...you have to read the context to try and understand what the overall flow of thought is in order to understand the intent. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=HCSB Also, "How to Read a Book" is stellar. https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Classic-Intelligent/dp/0671212095
    1
  158. Jack London - Seawolf
    1
  159. I would posit that there is no meaning of life. There is only meaning in life. ie meaning is necessarily personal.
    1
  160. Maybe you could say that love is the meaning of life. But love is transrational, or as Vervaeke says transjective. Irreducible A simultaneous reciprocity of transcendence and imminence Iconic Lived
    1
  161. Often those trained by academia don’t know how to dialogue well. They’re too used to just giving their opinions with a mic up front.
    1
  162. 16:41 perceived Yes. This is key. Perception is more fundamental in regard to knowledge or articulable knowledge. This is mainly why I like Polanyi and moreso Owen Barfield’s Saving the Appearances.
    1
  163. 5:10 - 5:17 👏🏼🙋🏼‍♂️💯 I have the same experience in intra-Christian debates where the spirit is a zero-sum competition hierarchy of “I’m right”.
    1
  164. 1:55:25 re: God’s perfection “Our becoming is God’s becoming.” - George McDonald.
    1
  165. 1:29:18 “they see you (joe) as a threat.” His response is wonderful, and that’s why I love you, Joe. “I want people to be happy and love each other and not having other people.” The problem that culture war tribalist/ideological people have though is “Who gets to decide harm?” People strongly connect harm with love, and we live in societies together. We have to understand what harm *is*, and that requires understanding human purpose and teleology. What are we FOR? What are human beings FOR? What if my understanding comes into conflict with yours and we live in a community together and have to decide how to live together peaceably. Who gives? Why? All hard questions.
    1
  166. 2:37:20 “a mob-based (violent) energy” Can this happen with scientism as well as religion or nationalism? Is tribalism universal? Why or why not?
    1
  167. 2:35:00 ie they’re not as smart as you. You’re perspective on religion is hubristic. You think that religious people are either ignorant, stupid, or plebeians. If the primary way to know things truly is iq, you want to sit atop the mountain, metaphorically, and pronounce Truth. I don’t think that IQ and objectivist fact-seeing is the primary way that we apprehend reality. You also said that earlier when you were talking about evolution and Donald Hoffman. Listen to yourself more. And I don’t mean that snarkily.
    1
  168. Is attention a choice? Is it subject to the will? When and how? Iris Murdoch thought of attention as the “just a loving gaze”. An orientation, a space of hospitality, a womb.
    1
  169. Nate Galvan How do you know that? Where did you hear that? Check out Tom Holland or Douglas Murray or Jordan Peterson for a few perspectives that don’t broadbrush something as historically significant as Christianity or the Bible. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially if you haven’t even done your due diligence on the bath water itself. (I’m pushing the analogy too far, but you get the point.)
    1
  170. Nate Galvan also, “there is no such thing as nonfiction.” - Tom Waits
    1
  171. 34:30 Regarding the work required to "see something anew". Reminds me of this: "Seeing is forgetting the name of the thing one sees." - Robert Irwin We must let go of our mental constructs and conceptions of things (& people) before we can see something that we haven't seen before. And then our attention can participate in bringing that new vision into reality. This is the difference between icons and idols.
    1
  172. 59:13 They’ve made a movie recently with a long no-dialogue, no-speaking buildup. “There Will Be Blood”. It’s brilliant.
    1
  173. Who is this lady? I’m not familiar.
    1
  174. @UC8sTYMkO4S8mN22Q1duSclA I’ve been internetting. She seems spicy to say the least. Also, I have about ten minutes of context, so…
    1
  175. @UC8sTYMkO4S8mN22Q1duSclA I’d love for Heers to talk to her. That sounds perfect.
    1
  176. 4:30 All true knowledge is personal.
    1
  177. 1:43:30 - 1:43:40 amen, Vervaeke. Either/or, winners/losers. I call this the Divided Man spirit. It begets division within and division outside. The “exclusivist religion of the right side of history”. This is what confessionalism does. When we elevate credo (the propositional articulation) over religio (the mystical bridge that binds & creates communion). “The Christian of the future will be a mystic or not at all.”
    1
  178. 49:38 - 50:30 slow clap Jonathan Pageau. YES! All of that. I call that the Divided Man. Sometimes I wonder if the first major seed was at Chalcedon...but the points that you lay out are definitely more clear. Thank you.
    1
  179.  @Unxpekted  If it doesn’t resonate with you, then it doesn’t resonate. “What you see and hear depends a lot upon where you’re standing and on the kind of person you are.” Blessings.
    1
  180. The question that needs answered is this: Why are we not able to have honest conversations with those with whom we disagree? The consistent answer is a return to liberalism and Reason. Again, how? Education? What if people aren't "reasonable" about using Reason and liberalism? The appeal to Reason isn't deep enough. We need a meaningful and true and good and beautiful religious substrate which manifests in the particular and is yet transcendent (outside of individual control, therefore not subject to the totalitarian impulse). Dostoevsky, "Beauty will save the world." I agree. Why? Because Reason isn't deep enough. You can't be reasonable if you're not honest. Honesty is a character thing, not a merely rational thing.
    1
  181. Determinism is based on so many assumptions. It’s not science. Get Rupert Sheldrake back on the podcast. Mechanistic theories are based in materialistic *assumptions*. It’s not profound. It’s much too simplistic. Read Michael Polanyi’s “Personal Knowledge” &/or “The Tacit Dimension” for a much more robust epistemology. “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” - George Box, statistician “Probabilities are the prophets of a mechanistic god.” - ND Wilson, “Notes from the Tilt-a-Whirl”
    1
  182.  @johnheers6220  I replied to this yesterday. I don't know where my comment went. Regardless... If you want extemporaneous rambling without facts, I'm your man. If you want someone more structured or credentialed: 1) David Armstrong - substack and youtube "A Perennial Digression" 2) Dr. Michael Martin - sophiologist, biodynamic farmer, author 3) Nate Hile - friend, head of Grail Country a youtube channel I had a bunch of links in the disappeared comment. This will have to do. :)
    1
  183.  @Alserany  ok
    1
  184. 13:47 “the careful, dispassionate analysis of the mathematical equations.” Think about the smuggling and assumptions in that Philosophical Positivism. Passion/emotions are anti-objectivity. Listen, we don’t even have Reason or an attempt at objectivity without a Reasoner. I am therefore I think >> I think therefore I am (Cogito, ergo sum). Being is more fundamental than epistemology.
    1
  185. Bret from 15:00 - 15:30 “I had to object. I had no choice because I was rational, and everyone else was a fact denier.” Ok, rationalist. See where that gets you.
    1
  186. Joe, one cannot worship God and Mammon. It's not as complicated as you're making it. Celebrity culture worship, pop culture worship is the worship of Mammon. The word translated as "mammon" or often money means, "the treasure that a person trusts in". i.e. what we want/value. Mammon could also be thought of as currency. So do you trust in an ineffable communion or a transaction (consumerism)? That's almost a simpler way to say what that verse is getting at, at least for the modern consciousness. By the way, historic explicit religious, institutional practice has been plagued with Mammon and consumerism and manipulation of authority...which is why Jesus taught against it. It's a big temptation. https://biblehub.com/greek/3126.htm This IS meaning. Everything is religious. Religion stems from the Latin "religio" which means "to bind" to bring together. Interestingly, Matthew McConaughey brought this up in his recent podcast with you.
    1
  187. Joe, you should read this also. You know Sheldrake. Scientism is rooted in positivist assumptions, which are philosophically hollow. https://www.sheldrake.org/books-by-rupert-sheldrake/the-science-delusion-science-set-free https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
    1
  188.  @DMWayne-ke7fl  Strong words. Funniest? Perhaps. I'm a big fan of DW, and have a bit of a love/hate relationship with his work. Much bigger fan of ND Wilson, tbh. I would prefer Wilson spoke with some other theologians outside his particular camp or get outside of polemics against Progressivist evangelicalism. More intramural Christian dialogue.
    1
  189.  @marcher8023  that’s fine. Everybody sees what they see (or doesn’t). Polemics are for colonizers. God bless.
    1
  190. 29:00 - 29:15 this is a great little clip of why I struggle with Mohammed Hijab and any other smug rationalist who is certain of their ideological standing rooted in abstractions. It’s very unbecoming. The Christian apologetics world is full of guys like this too.
    1
  191. Robert hodgins To be sneaky. You got me. All above board here. The social impulse to not say “god” where people have traditionally said “god” is interesting. Also, what would be the difference btw a conscious, *gracious*, and personal being called a “universe” and what has traditionally been called God? One doesn’t break assumptions of philosophical materialism? I really don’t see a difference beyond mere semantics.
    1
  192. Robert hodgins yeah. I think that’s probably a pretty good bet.
    1
  193. 2:08:30 “what is means to be a person…our individual, subjective minds.” Nominalism. This is a man divided. This is an assumption rooted in…? Abstractions. Deduction. Not experience or even empiricism. Philosophical scientism.
    1
  194. Alexander Dugin on the Ukraine-Russian War https://youtu.be/NXNlNsOXqsM
    1
  195. This talk has been wonderful so far. However, to talk of what would have happened, if we had not sinned/if Creation had not fallen, is irrelevant.
    1
  196. Woe to you when all men think well of you. - Jesus i.e. you’re probably not telling the truth.
    1
  197. “Memory is the purveyor of reason.” - Samuel Johnson Also, the person is the locus of all meaning. That’s what the double-slit, observer phenomenon is telling us.
    1
  198. 24:00 we don’t know (in an articulable, encapsulable way…think Michael Polanyi’s modernist assumptions of knowledge) what the resurrection is. Saying that what St. Paul meant is a “physical” resurrection has a TON of assumptions that are unknowable. At least in the way that you want to know. Peterson is answering these questions well, imo.
    1
  199. I'd really like Joe to break down for the difference between angels and aliens in his mind, besides labels and/or using scientific vs philosophical language.
    1
  200. I agree with a lot of this. But there is a deeper problem than DEI. Liberalism lead to DEI. There is no going back to liberalism. Objectivism is the sickness.
    1
  201.  @markgarcia6887  I think that’s likely true. Scientists are beginning to talk of logos a bunch, or so I’ve heard. Whatever. Invent new words without baggage. There’s nothing new under the Sun.
    1
  202. 2:33:45 which thoughts of Jesus do you accept and which do you reject? And how do you decide? Then think back to earlier in this conversation when you said that you don’t know where your thoughts come from.
    1
  203. 0:22 “I just made that up.” 😂 Love it.
    1
  204. 1:01:50 Rilke: “…the point is to live everything”
    1
  205. There are multiple ways to influence. Systematic influence or personal influence, for example. Systematic would be mechanistic and not necessarily personal. However, the personal would necessarily be rooted in relationship and context and admiration or respect. Therefore one—the systematic influence—has the capacity for manipulation and abuse. Whereas the personal does not. And lastly, the systematic/mechanical influence can be received willingly or unwillingly, voluntarily or involuntarily, coercively or noncoercively. This is the difference between the Church as a healthy organism and the church as an institution.
    1
  206. 1:01:56 "Every act of perception, unites earth and heaven." The person is the locus and nexus of all and any meaning. The hard problem of all perception.
    1
  207. Joe, try talking to an actual religious practitioner or scholar of early Christianity. Speak to a solid Orthodox or Catholic or Coptic priest or bishop. Bishop Barron or John Behr would be good examples.
    1
  208. Relational ontology/knowing >>> epistemological “knowing”. Participatory is relational (personal). All true knowledge is rooted in persons/being.
    1
  209. Leave politics to the usurpers and blind leaders of the blind, Jordan. It’s the way of the world. It’s perishing. It’s the opiate of the masses.
    1
  210. Joe should have Firas Zahabi back on to talk about Science again. He's still not getting it.
    1
  211.  @nierlindin1006  idk. I would push on define "exist". And then explain to me how existence works. I start with ontology, not epistemology. Like with 1) how does this supernatural entity *exist*. That's a complicated discussion. John Vervaeke (who recently spoke to Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau and Bishop Barron) actually talks about the difference btw atheism and nontheism, which is rooted in a lot of premodern philosophy/theology. 2) That just presupposes the existence of both matter and consciousness, which is hard dualism. 3) I agree. We are all agnostic in that sense in a post-Enlightenment, post-modern frame. But just because you can't know something with pure objectivity, does not mean that we cannot know it truly. 4) I like some aspects of Rand, but that is nominalism. And I'm not a fan. How does abstraction exist?
    1
  212. Nob for sure.
    1
  213. 10:25 "How do you make that leap?" Why is that the leap? You're assuming that you are starting without presuppositions. Where are you starting from? Base reality? You don't have a perspective or context or filters? Salience!! Listen to more Jordan Peterson. Particularly his last two youtube drops. Or better yet, have him back on to talk about science and consciousness.
    1
  214. 1:35 I have some perennialism going as well! 😁I actually made a video on the difference btw Christian perennialism and religious pluralism if that whets your whistle.
    1
  215.  @johnheers6220  sure. It’s just on my personal channel where I basically post extemporaneous thoughts as a journal. And please don’t envy my production value. https://youtu.be/Alps8ounl0c
    1
  216. 2:58 you talkin about my eyes?
    1
  217. 1:32:20 “All models are false. Some are useful.”
    1
  218. 26:50 I'm looking toward Orthodoxy. So...
    1
  219. Re: Build a garden and gardening being as common as prayer. Maybe gardening is prayer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPrPtDoaB3s&pp=ygUedHVybiBvZmYgdGhlIG5ld3MgbHVrYXMgbmVsc29u
    1
  220. The anti-Cuties crowd is well-intentioned, but way off base, imo. They misapply their logic. What about child actors in horror films? In films with violence or physical abuse or (fill in the blank)? No. It’s representative of our culture! What about all the girls who are having that experience daily? I watched the film, and it’s good.
    1
  221. 7:16 "...feminism."
    1
  222. That's not how the appeal to authority fallacy works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
    1
  223. Pageau isn’t Greek Orthodox. 😂
    1
  224. 1:26:50 Christ the Eternal Tao The identity of identity and non-identity. But not abstractly. The Divine Human Being: the person. The Conscious Unity of Multiplicity.
    1
  225.  @jeremyfirth  ok. I didn’t know that. Good to know. Thanks!
    1
  226. This is a “secular” version of what I call PoS theology and therefore anthropology. Only applied to the “other”, in this particular instance. But the chickens will come home to roost.
    1
  227. That's not Brendan Schuab, that's Batman.
    1
  228. 100 Agee with Lex about pushing back on Rogan interviewing Trump.
    1
  229. Apropos.
    1
  230. What Aaron did is legit leadership as a face of the nfl team and a quarterback.
    1
  231. 11:25 - 11:30 but the full embodiment of God IS a character. That’s the Incarnation. But this is all very esoteric stuff. It’s not a 1:1 “is” of equivalence (the Son is not exactly the Father), but an “is” of essence. The Spirit of the Father, his will and energy is fully represented and manifested in the action of the Son “not my will but your will”.
    1
  232. 2:33:45 which thoughts of Jesus do you accept and which do you reject? And how do you decide? Then think back to earlier in this conversation when you said that you don’t know where your thoughts come from.
    1
  233. 29:00 I would posit that Rustin Cohle was a believer. Check out the work of Peter Rollins. Sometimes the strongest anti-theists are the most committed to God. Libidinally. Subconsciously, perhaps. They are often the most passionate about God. "If you ask me, the light's winnin."
    1
  234. Who is down voting this? Good grief. How is this a bad conversation, even if you disagree with the points being made? Seems to me that only ideologues would dislike this. Or people that don't like open dialogue.
    1
  235. 1:44:30 Meaning or utility? How are those related?
    1
  236. 58:20 - 58:32 "The ecological movements are that because they represent nature. Or they claim (self-identify) to represent it...it doesn't matter if they really are or aren't (their propositional self-identify doesn't matter per se), that's what they embody. They embody a mediation between nature and civilization. Divided Man. Our necessary and inherent self-division is not at one within us. We need henosis by kenosis. An integration, an at-one-ment through voluntary self-emptying--masculine and feminine, Adam-Eve...God.
    1
  237. Starting from “all-powerful”. 1:48
    1
  238. 1:00:26 Timber-frame houses 😍
    1
  239. Replicants. Ideologues. Identitarians. Not people. Agreed.
    1
  240. sounds like Sam Harris's wife (Sorry. that's how Rogan referred to her. i'm a feminist...kinda) is reading/watching/listening to Rupert Sheldrake...
    1
  241. 43:48 “Problem is that Christians that ask that have a metaphysics that’s not Christian.” ❤💯
    1
  242. 12:00 Amen, Destiny. Siloed conservative and liberal schools is sad, at best, and deadly, at worst.
    1
  243. 1:26:47 - 1:28:00 exactly, Jordan. Well said. We definitely don’t need more people telling other people what they should believe. Honest inquirers. Seekers.
    1
  244. 13:30 -13:40 regarding that “it could be a neutral monism at the bottom.” Sure. Maybe. Whatever is fundamental must make sense of two things: unity and multiplicity. And the dynamism and relationship between the two cannot be clearly divisive or static. If I may be so bold...trinitarian theology covers this paradoxical conundrum better than anything that I’ve come across.
    1
  245. Unbeatable...
    1