freakin' dank dialogos, dude

John was really on a hot streak there. We call that the flow state baby.

@@JUXTAHRAW ^

The organizers daughter made it. Very talented girl.

Very much akin to DC Schindler's definition of freedom as perfect readiness (and thus also akin to John on meta-optimal grip)

You are exactly right! It’s CS Lewis on steroids combined with Acts 17:28 “For in him we live and move and have our being...”

Do you think Rudolph Steiner added anything to the understanding of Christ or is it bunk? I find his descriptions of the mystery of Golgotha and the interplay of Buddha and Christ very compelling. Namaste

I think it's a buddhist phrase, sounds like scinci unativa, or something. nothing on google. He's talking about geist, though, and relating /relevance realization on objects and systems and how they extrapolate. The universe in a grain of sand is worth a google search though.

'Scientia Intuitiva' from Spinoza. Not prepared to define the term but at least I could help with the spelling, ha!

@@peten5426 THANK YOU!

@@tara_artist My pleasure

Those biologists are wrong, and there is no war within the mind or body, other than in people with some degree of mental health problems. In civilization, yes, parasympathetic and sympathetic are in conflict BUT only because civilization is not natural. In civilization we are either in sympathetic mode or parasympathetic mode, but in nature or in a fully natural act, we can be in both. Is sex relaxing? Yes, very. Is it exciting? Yes, very. Flow states are both. Working in a cubicle job is often neither, or just one or the other. It's only both if you get into a great flow state crunching numbers in Excel.

Bacteria in the body, and every other living thing that makes its home in the body, helps the body. The idea of "bad bacteria" is a pernicious myth. Microbes that live in the body are never the enemy, despite a million fables spun since Pasteur.

You just need to be exposed more to him as you suggested. It was the same for me with all of them. It's wonderful how the brain connect the dots when you attend to anything for an ample amount of time. Trust me Vervaeke's work plays a humongous role in all of this.

Vervaeke's opening remarks were highly condensed. I think he is trying to strike a balance between explaining things to people who aren't already familiar with the idea he wants to express, but at the same time he doesn't want to spend too much time explaining things that others have heard him say dozens of times.

At his worst Vervaeke can slip into "too much in his own head" private language where he verbally gesticulates at the idea with too-condensed of a term, but over time the points should land.

I felt exactly that way and yet there was something in it that drew me in. I followed the entire Awakening to the Meaning Crisis series and then his interviews with others and gradually began to grasp more and more of his concepts after repeated listenings. What can be is especially helpful are interviews with people uninitiated to his ideas...like Lex Friedman and some others floating around where he breaks down his ideas in understandable ways. I listen and watch while working out so I have time to absorb this stuff although admittedly I feel like I should be taking notes in class. But hours of exposure will yield greater understanding and in my opinion well worth it. Also his Theory of Everything interviews including the ones with Bernardo Kasrtrup are especially elucidating. Good luck I think he is a brilliant man with some helpful insights to share with humanity.

What system do you suggest instead?

@@KalebPeters99 Monarchy

@@ivan.engelchristisking Both systems are capable of being run by benevolent or malevolent individuals.

Democracy is as old as Zoroastrian. Like any civilisation going through big change, democracy too needs help to realign it's purpose.

There has never been and never will be a democracy. We live in an aristocracy. Democracy is just the window dressing for the masses. Voting makes zero difference. We need a tool to ground aristocracy, which is apparently Christianity since Christianity is what was around back in openly monarcic/aristocratic days. The *illusion* of democracy is what killed God, and the reason for that illusion was collectivist scientism where "anyone can contribute" regardless of intelligence. The old system of thinkers like Mach and Berkeley was a system of individualist "science" in the old sense of logical reasoning with great semantic clarity, based on a first-person epistemology, with religion taken less directly literally by the aristocracy, who were the intellectuals. Now everyone is an intellectual but they're collectivist in their approach. Social, not truly analytical.