AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:27 pm
Most will probably listen JP and just hear bumbling and confusion (and his interruptions are definitely annoying), but he is operating on the deep mythological level. He is trying to relate what JV is speaking of into the spiritual mythology of Judeo-Christian tradition and what exactly is happening in modern Western society in spiritual-mythological terms. At one point he is almost attributing these things to "Satanic" spirits operating in the modern world, which is probably not the best way to put it.
By his behaviour in the discussion, the interruptions, the talking over instead of listening, the nervous laughter... it looks as if JP himself is partially possessed by a "Satanic spirit". But not very strong such, more like spirit of deep self-doubt which manifests as badly communicating over-reacting and self-important "me, me me" -meme.
JP was much, much better in his talk with the young anarchist.
These are things we just need to ignore to follow the deeper discussion being had, which is centered around the essence of Thinking spiritual activity since at least the time of the Eleusinian mysteries (which JP refers to explicitly) and Egyptian mysteries to which Pythagoras was initiated (which JV refers to explicitly). Unfortunately they started off the discussion with those topics and then went from there into purely cognitive science issues. I think I still have about 45 min left so maybe they return at the end but it didn't seem that was likely where I left off. Still there is a good deal of those spiritual-philosophical issues raised in the first half.
Re: Peterson dialogos with Vervaeke
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:44 pm
by Soul_of_Shu
JP is still looking pained at times, and struggling with his focus and delivery, but here he just looks like someone having a laugh and an animated chat at a pub with a close colleague ... if pubs were open that is.
Re: Peterson dialogos with Vervaeke
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:55 pm
by SanteriSatama
AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:22 pm
These are things we just need to ignore to follow the deeper discussion being had, which is centered around the essence of Thinking spiritual activity since at least the time of the Eleusinian mysteries (which JP refers to explicitly) and Egyptian mysteries to which Pythagoras was initiated (which JV refers to explicitly). Unfortunately they started off the discussion with those topics and then went from there into purely cognitive science issues. I think I still have about 45 min left so maybe they return at the end but it didn't seem that was likely where I left off. Still there is a good deal of those spiritual-philosophical issues raised in the first half.
Why ignored? JV tried to talk about e.g. Thracian shamans (in relation to Pythagoras) - only to be immediately cut by JP obsession with narrative of "high" civilization.
We've done psychadelics etc. as long as we've been humans. Eleusis is not anything new in that respect.
Re: Peterson dialogos with Vervaeke
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:17 pm
by Soul_of_Shu
At about the 1:36:00 mark, where it gets into the ontological status of consciousness and the Jungian 'unconscious', this conversation is crying out for BK's intervention and participation, making the anticipation all the more eager ...
AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:22 pm
These are things we just need to ignore to follow the deeper discussion being had, which is centered around the essence of Thinking spiritual activity since at least the time of the Eleusinian mysteries (which JP refers to explicitly) and Egyptian mysteries to which Pythagoras was initiated (which JV refers to explicitly). Unfortunately they started off the discussion with those topics and then went from there into purely cognitive science issues. I think I still have about 45 min left so maybe they return at the end but it didn't seem that was likely where I left off. Still there is a good deal of those spiritual-philosophical issues raised in the first half.
Why ignored? JV tried to talk about e.g. Thracian shamans (in relation to Pythagoras) - only to be immediately cut by JP obsession with narrative of "high" civilization.
We've done psychadelics etc. as long as we've been humans. Eleusis is not anything new in that respect.
I do blame JP for diverting the discussion away from those things. He was jumping all over the map. I don't see how that could have been anything other than his attempts to relieve pain of sitting still. But I am saying we should try to mine whatever gold we can get from that discussion, now that it's over and it went the way it went. JP may reduce those mysteries to psychedelic use, I am not sure... but they are much more significant than mere use of psychedelics.
Re: Peterson dialogos with Vervaeke
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:55 pm
by Starbuck
Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:17 pm
At about the 1:36:00 mark, where it gets into the ontological status of consciousness and the Jungian 'unconscious', this conversation is crying out for BK's intervention and participation, making the anticipation all the more eager ...
I've come to the opinion that a lot of people are almost genetically predisposed to being uninterested in ontologies.
I think BK made an important point when he debated JV. If he was having therapy and he and the therapist were able to 'find meaning' during their sessions, a part of his brain would still be gnawing away at him, as that could just be an overlay, like a plaster covering a wound. I feel the same, but even in the company of passionate philosophers and psychologists I am seeing that I am in a small minority.
Re: Peterson dialogos with Vervaeke
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:59 pm
by AshvinP
I really can't figure out why JV does not accept idealism yet... it's like everything else he says about consciousness and knowledge is exactly what flows from idealism, and he even knows BK is making undeniable arguments. Maybe because he thinks idealism is "too simple" of an explanation, and he doesn't want any ontology without a few layers of abstract concepts for the Ground? I don't get it.
Re: Peterson dialogos with Vervaeke
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:35 pm
by SanteriSatama
AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:26 pm
I do blame JP for diverting the discussion away from those things. He was jumping all over the map. I don't see how that could have been anything other than his attempts to relieve pain of sitting still. But I am saying we should try to mine whatever gold we can get from that discussion, now that it's over and it went the way it went. JP may reduce those mysteries to psychedelic use, I am not sure... but they are much more significant than mere use of psychedelics.
JP had an excellent discussion about psychadelics with an academic researcher. Of course, psychadelics can open "the gates of perception", but similar experiences can and do occur also spontaneously, and what is important is the actual learning and transformation, less so various tools and techniques.
AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:59 pmJust to clarify, the names on the quotes should be reversed... actually I am not sure what happened here because I did not post the response in bold.
I've no clue how that got messed up, but the part in bold was my response to your comment about JV's ambivalence regarding idealism, and not to any comment by Starbuck. I've tried to correct it accordingly.
Re: Peterson dialogos with Vervaeke
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2021 1:05 am
by Soul_of_Shu
AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 9:53 pmI really can't figure out why JV does not accept idealism yet... it's like everything else he says about consciousness and knowledge is exactly what flows from idealism, and he even knows BK is making undeniable arguments. Maybe because he thinks idealism is "too simple" of an explanation, and he doesn't want any ontology without a few layers of abstract concepts for the Ground? I don't get it.
The indoctrination surely dies hard, a death that often seems to require some indelible revelatory component, beyond just some cogent intellectual argument, which once attained then renders the intellectual case ancillary. JV may just be in that category.
