Could you do an episode with Keith Woods?

@RoyalistKev

3 ай бұрын

No Feds.

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

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.

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.

Always glad to watch your videos.

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

@sameash3153

2 ай бұрын

They stole that from the Jewish and catholic tradition

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

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.

Exactly.

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

3 ай бұрын

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

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

@hallvardjrgensen2452

3 ай бұрын

Or also DB Harts new book.

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.

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

Eminence < Transcendence

@Honziku

3 ай бұрын

Immanence?

@oumod_

3 ай бұрын

@@Honziku no

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.

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.

Only a lion can make new values.

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.

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

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

@millerman

2 ай бұрын

Paid (kapwing)

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

@millerman

3 ай бұрын

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.

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

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

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

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

@MadeAnAccountOnlyToReplyToThis

2 ай бұрын

Guess what that requires.

@mr.coolmug3181

2 ай бұрын

Where do healthy communities come from?

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

One God.

@Wingedmagician

3 ай бұрын

The holy trinity. Christ, Buddha and Philosophy.

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.

Radical relativism is not enchantment