A Passion Play kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fMB2n9Rk37fMgWQ.html

John, there is no conclusion to the path you are on. 50 hours!! What would Occum say? This isn't about roy being right, it's about Truth. I know you feel that you are relating truth, but in actuality you are 180 degrees going the opposite direction. 50 hours on a subject that I can explain in a few sentences. I have to call you out. You are, unbeknownst, leading consciousness deeper into Maya. You must contact me. Messing around at this level of reality should be taken with much care. I'm sending you my Theory Of Enlightenment, again. If you are a sincere seeker, you should engage with me. Complexity is an indication that a theory is incorrect. A message has one correct interpretation and an infinite amount of incorrect interpretations. Your path/theory is incorrect

@@Nonconceptuality Okay then, what are the sentences?

Unless

@@Nonconceptuality John argued in the first episode, anyone who tries to present a solution to the meaning crisis in under 1 hour is either decieving you or themselves decieved. There is no simple answer to a complex problem such as this. It's like trying to explain all of rocket science in under 1 hour!

Thanks for sharing this!

Thank you for sharing this. It is most helpful.

I guarantee you will. Willingly or not, John has produced a Sacred body of work here with AFTMC, as he described Plato as Sacred.

@Jonne I resonate deeply with your comment. Thanks for so eloquently voicing what I too am experiencing.

@@calebking6417 Wow, glad to hear at least one other person has the same vibes! :)

@Jonne: cognitive science is still based on a materialistic framework as far as I know. It has almost zero understanding of what transcendence means and how it works. As to Vervaeke 's claim (?) that modern science has made the wisdom traditions outdated, I have seen no evidence that this is the case. In my free ebook Rediscovering Transcendence, I rather show a convergence of some of ideas embedded both in said tradition and modern academic science.

He lost me around the 4e cog Sci episode but I keep digging, trying to get thru the jargon and make sense of it. There is valuable info in here but I feel like if this series is meant to help lay persons,not professors and philosophers then it's hold be stripped of excessive technical language.

@@matthafer2415 Yeah I agree. If you humanity is to awaken from a widespread crisis, more than just the deep intellectuals need to be able to understand it.

It takes some time and effort, and probably another listen (or two) to get a grasp for us mere mortals. This was my third time, and it is finally starting to fit together for me.

kkkkkkk. same thing happen here. : )

Thanks Lee

What is this V.E.R Wiki? Your link doesn't seem to work for me.

@@dsuleyma cwsl.ca/wiki/concepts_tree/?fbclid=IwAR3J9I7VLUHEfAonSQX7WmvMgRKu4jgnl23hGH8V5uqo-6ku__ABYhPXFIw

Camus once hinted at this in a similar note but quite pejoratively by saying we humans are the only species who refuse who we are.

Perhaps this: aspiration is self-transcendence. Insofar as treason is self -correction it depends on self-transcendence. If reason says self-transcendence is irrational it pronounces itself irrational. In other words the leap of reason and the leap of faith interpenetrate rather than being opposed to one another.

@@johnvervaeke Thank you! I am truly humbled that you took the time to respond. Your work has been extremely transformative for me and I am very thankful for the wealth of knowledge and (more importantly) wisdom that you are spreading.

Hi William, the conclusion is of my argument. There are four more episodes where I put that argument into a dialogue with the prophets of the meaning crisis.

No worries. We are trying to fix this problem. Sorry for this.

A diagram would be very useful! Also a diagram of RR itself would be so useful. I have come up with some ideas, but would love to see how John and his team would draw it.

Have you seen this from John's lab? It is not specifically about the series but his work more generally cwsl.ca/wiki/concepts_tree/?fbclid=IwAR3J9I7VLUHEfAonSQX7WmvMgRKu4jgnl23hGH8V5uqo-6ku__ABYhPXFIw

@@jasetheacity Wow .. this is good. Thanks for posting this link. I keep getting the differing types of wisdom mixed up. This clarifies .. thank you.

I find your comment to be enigmatic, and I'm struggling to formulate a respectful response. I don't want to push you away, but it really strongly feels like there's a lot you didn't get along the way here. Like seriously almost all of it. Describing the world as "opaque" in and of itself doesn't make any sense. Opaqueness implies both the seer and the seen, the observer and the observed. So the world can't be inherently opaque in itself, rather the opacity is a transjective relationship that exists between the world and the observer, and is dependent on both. Once we have this straightened out, we can see that the entire first half of the lecture series a historical account of why the world is so confusing to us in our current situation today. Do you see what I'm getting at? The questioned you posed in your comment didn't get addressed because the question you asked is a fundamental misframing of the predicament we find ourselves in today, and getting you to see that was the entire point of this lecture series. I think you're disappointed specifically because you didn't understand Aristotle, you didn't understand tranjectivity, etc. I want to be fair to you, but I really don't know how else to put it. I'm not sure what you mean by dedicating your life to a practice you can't falsify. John explicitly isn't asking this of you, and it isn't fair of you to act like he is. John isn't insisting that you have to practice mindfulness because of the way reality is. He's offering you a solution to perennial problems that you will face in your life. Not trying to be disrespectful, but you just sound really blasé and I get the feeling like you really just didn't pay very close attention. Are you sure you've been "exploring your beingness" (whatever that means) your whole life? Are you sure you havent spent a great deal of time in the having mode, deceiving yourself. It just sounds dishonest.

@@guycomments Haha blasé is the perfect word to describe how I was feeling that day. And thank you for the comment, I was eagerly waiting for him or anyone to reach out b/c I do genuinely yearn to overcome my predicament. I think you're also right about the fact that I didn't quite understand transjectivity. Would you mind explaining it to me? You said "opacity is a transjective relationship that exists between the world and the observer, and is dependent on both." What does this mean? I'm aware of the concept of non-duality and the various religious, philosophical, cosmological traditions that espouse it...so I can see how my question is possibly a misframing, as you put it, of the predicament we find ourselves in today. But see, for me, the "predicament" seems a lot of more complex and messy than Dr. Vervaeke (and the traditions he seems to pull from) make it out to be. His diagnosis makes it sound a like a disease-- a problem of perspective, a disease of memory...if you could only seat still, or meditate or do whatever x thing to experience sati---to brush against the ineffable--- * then * your predicament/disease would be healed. But why are sick in the first place? Why do we have "a self-destructive tendency" as he put it? Is it a feature or a bug? And either way, who put it there? why did such a bug have to exist in the first place? Now I can see your reply saying something like ' that's a bad question...you're missing the point...observer/object...the predicament [disease] is precisely a function of...' but see, all those questions are pointing to a deeper question that's hard to articulate---why is their a predicament in the first place!? Why does the disease exist at all !!? I'm curious to hear why such a predicament exists in Vervaeke's construct. For ex, in Christianity, it's the lucifer's greed, jealousy and audaciousness. So what is it in this construct? Here's a crude and terrible analogy. To me, this lecture series is like someone confusing existential angst/despair with clinical depression. It does a decent job at chronicling some key developments and shifts in the history of religion and philosophy, but miserably fails as a panacea for the problem it claims to address. And sure, I understand, one can't get buff by listening to a CrossFit audio book...you actually have to understand the principles and apply them...and maybe I'm so full of it that I missing some great insight or maybe even the Truth (i sure hope not). But idk guy, it seems to me the lecture series doesn't appreciate the sheer massiveness of "the question". It's really just a brief history of ideas ideas sprinkled in with a little psychology and neuroscience smh...you are right though; I was disappointed...I felt like I was back in my college days listening to a slightly more academic Alan Watts -\(:/)/-

If you go further into the extended self/mind thesis, it appears that humans are not really comparable to most other organisms, as we are highly social organaims, our cognition is "distributed" between members of the "group", which means that no singular human has the complete picture of reality. I think the reason why we are many orders of magnitude more effective at niche construction is because we are actually a super-organism! Yer, much of the time that is arguable lol. But we definitely have the potential, it is just that we keep screwing things up!

It´s much simpler than that. Philosophers have been questioning being for ages in the form of ontology, but they have treated ontology as an abstract, distant question. The insight is simply that when we discus being, we are talking about our own deepest self, not some abstract philosophical question.

well also we’re the being in question because we’re us. we’re the ones thinking, experiencing, philosophizing. humanity’s attempts at understanding mostly began by focusing outward; heidegger is saying we missed a step. before understanding anything else, we have to understand our own being. and in addition, because we’re the beings whose form/nature is the most indeterminate (because we vary so greatly and can take such a wide array of stances towards what it is to be/live), we’re naturally a fruitful place to start for understanding being as a whole... in other words our being (as humans) is naturally a question, and struggling to answer this question will likely give insight into being overall

Maybe the clue is, that it is an analytical differentiation for heuristic reasons. One classic example for such a procedure may be the "dyade" (Diade) of epistemology--ontology: You study being "outside" via understanding knowing "inside". You (re)start a (natural) hermeneutical circle. Working all together, it ideally makes up a coherent "world-view".

I've listed some of the works cited in my comment below (or above, as the case may be). I also included some other notes and transcribed excerpts.

Tillich’s The courage to be. Hadot’s what is ancient philosophy?, Heidegger’s Being and Time, Merleau-Ponty’s The phenomenology of perception.

@@johnvervaeke Thanks for the quick response, John! I really loved Tillich's book. So much that I also gave it as a present to my (non-dogmatic Catholic) father. Hadot's "Philosophy as a way of life" and "What is ancient philosophy?" I read the Dutch translations of, which were very meaningful to me as well. The Inner Citadel has a place on one of the bookshelves, but hasn't been read yet. I will pick up and dive into the work of Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and the introduction to the Kyoto School next!

Fair enough. I am too ignorant to adequately comment on Wilbur. I am learning about his work now, and I am hoping we will have a direct conversation. It might happen through Rebel Wisdom or Letterswiki.

@@johnvervaeke thankyou John. Appreciate the reply. After watching all ur excellent lectures and being deeply familiar with Wilber I believe there will be much mutual resonance! Thanks again!

Ken is good, but I think he focuses too much on developmental psychology. He also creates the Wilber-Coombs lattice which separates state-stages with structure stages of development. I like how John seems to weave them more together with enlightenment and wisdom. Ken also seems to focus more on Eastern traditions. Ken also brings in Gardner's work of lines of development and/or multiple intelligences, but I think by doing so, kind of takes out the characteristics of virtue, compassion, etc that John brings in with Wisdom, etc.

This is probably a more relevant article, I read it a while back, both concepts influenced by Ken's work: www.beamsandstruts.com/essays/item/770-unique-self-authentic-self-and-the-flavor-of-embodied-enlightenment

It's a marathon, not a skydive.

@@peterrosqvist2480 - I don’t understand your metaphor… especially being a marathoner myself. 🤔 What did you mean to say?

Why would you expect and need a climax?

@@ThePathOfEudaimonia - Expectation: well, to keep it simple (for a start), how about the title? “Awakening”? Does it happen? Alas, not really. Again, the retelling / reinterpretation / condensation of how we got to the current state of our collective knowledge is a joy to listen. Need: a crisis generally requires a solution, or at least a hint, a proposal of a plan. If the series was titled and presented differently in the intro, say, “let me tell you the history of human thought from ancient times to the current day with varying degree of detail and leave you at that” - then, no, I wouldn’t expect a climax. 🤷🏻‍♂

@@ektaron Is awakening always a climactic event? Is it fair to ask to be awakened by just (passively) listening and watching a lecture series? How is the process of an ecology of practices proposed by JV not part or hint of a plan? Is it fair or useful to ask for a simple solution to a complex problem of meaning?

Roy, the reason that John's explanation takes so long is because he is diligent and careful in a way that others aren't. He takes great pains to give credit and context and avoid falling into the God or Prophet complex that you and others seem trapped in. Have you watched the whole series? What in particular do you disagree with?

The reason why John's explanation is so long is because he actually doesn't know the answer. I do. So do prophets have "prophet complex"? Are there genuine prophets? If yes, then why can't roy dopson be one?