“Diversity without unity is decomposition”. Absolutely brilliant. So inversely, unity without diversity is something like ossification

You ask very good questions Rafe, thanks. I think the suspicion that symbolism threatens science is symbolically right but technically wrong. It's not that symbolism contradicts scientific epistemology, but it does embed science in such a larger frame that it becomes far less interesting. It makes you want to quit your lab experiments to go participate in a ritual. It makes you want to drop your textbook and pick up a novel. In fact, scientific epistemology and symbolic epistemology are basically the same. You try to identify a pattern and then test it out to see if it lands. It's just that science has tended to limit itself to low-level, mechanical patterns. Consistency at the price of completeness. Symbolism is opening the door back up to more completeness. This also means that the worry about finding false or misleading patterns is very relevant. Completeness at the price of consistency. It's a huge practical problem in symbolism, especially online, where people can just go crazy trying to identify patterns and never putting them to the test in real life. That's why Jonathan insists so much on participating in a real life community. It takes a community to test out higher-level symbolic patterns. Lab experiments won't do. You need to see people successfully embodying ideas to see that those ideas can land, that they don't just tear reality apart. Plenty of lone symbolists not only end up with crazy ideas, but go crazy themselves. Thanks again,

In the end of the Harry Potter story when he is “in heaven” with Dumbledore he asks: is this all real or is it happening in my head? And Dumbledore answers, off course it’s happening in your head, that doesn’t make it “not real”. I’m paraphrasing a bit but that’s basically the answer to the question of the face in the cloud. When a pattern becomes apparent to us, it is real and the meaning comes from the pattern, not the physical thing in which we see the pattern. The question in what is real is also a bit stupid because everything we call physical is really not physical and solid, when you zoom in. What makes them real is that a different levels patterns exist that we are able to recognize. It’s all in our ability to recognize or not recognize. So everything in relation to our pattern of reality. Anyhow...

I love how Jonathan can’t hide his feelings and thoughts. It’s always all over his face. A pattern so to speak. At least he’s honest with his thoughts and explains the why and how. Thanks for the great interview you two.

Science takes things apart in order to understand how they work. Religion puts things together to make meaning.

Jonathan forgot to mention that Mary is actually considered the highest saint as well. So the highest human that isn’t also divine is actually a woman. So Mary is considered greater than Moses, King David, etc. Despite not having a particularly “active” role in the story. The church itself is also considered to be the “bride” of Christ, which is another way the feminine is represented.

This conversation reminds me of when Rome turned into an empire from a republic. So fascinating.

Its fascinating to see you guys talking to each other again!

Jonathan’s explanation of the face here is sooooo good.

This is one of my favourites!!!

I started to see faces in the clouds when I cried out for Christ to save me. They are horrifying sometimes. I never knew what to make of it.

Looking forward to the next conversation! So many great questions and insights here!

Thanks

Your first conversation with Jonathan was painfully under viewed. It was probably a top 3 conversation with Pageau that I had watched. Excited for the sequel

Awesome talk!

Your question at the end Rafe is gold!

Rafe seems like a genuine dude. I like him...

Thanks guys for a first class fascinating talk!

34:10 That's a really great point about being scared of the moral resolution and turning to inversion as the only way!

Jonathan I so am grateful for all the interviews you do because each one I understand an aspect of the symbolic world better and better. You both did an amazing job discussing a variety of topics. Looking forward to the third discussion. Be blessed 😊

Loved the discussion, just as much as the first one. Should continue with the third episode! A question for R, does your evolutionary understanding of faces help you understand in any way faces as identities? Because that is what they are, that is why they are meaning. Faces are giving us our identies, they are not just an infrastructure that gives out clues for survival. A human body without a face would be monstrous to us, irrespective of how beautiful it would be, because it would be void of identity and meaning. The word person comes from the latin persona, while the greek equivalent is prosopon, which very interestringly means face, at its origin. A person without a face is not a person, they loose their identity, not just their ability to comunicate signals that ensure their survival.

Another cracking conversation. Rafe is the stubborn, immovable yin to Jonathan's unstoppable yang and you dance so well together.

The righteous. " the good people" doing the right thing for us all. Thinking of the rise of puritanicalism after plague. The Scarlet Letter.

Listening to the last part, it occurred to me that Rafe was talking about descriptions of reality and how accurate they are, with science being the most accurate. Jonathan was talking about the actual experience of reality and how symbolic knowledge is the flow of that experience. In the 'what is a face" discussion, Jonathan is saying that when you see a face, you're not measuring it and analysing it scientifically, you experience it symbolically. It manifests various things to you and it shapes your experience. Rafe is saying, you have to also step back and do various scientific procedures to fill out your symbolic experience. Jonathan seems to be saying that this stepping back is not a good way to incorporate knowledge in your reality flow. The constant back and forth of members in a community, that is a traditional approach to knowledge is more effective in the grand scheme of things.

There is an angel for every two entities interacting and I want to see more of this angel

Hooooo this is epic

During the discussion of the feminine vs masculine archetypes I was thinking about Mary. I’ve always been confused about her role since I am a Protestant. The lack of information about her combined with the fervent adoration by the Catholics confused me. But I’m understanding that her role was quiet and unspoken like the divine feminine archetype.

I think Rafe's and Jonathan's face problem is really a difference in function. This is how I see it: In order for Rafe to accept that a pattern is correct he needs to know HOW it is correct, as in how it is working from a mechanistic or algorithmic point of view. He needs to validate the inner working of the pattern before he deems it true. Jonathan on the other hand does not care as much about having the mechanistic explanation (although he accepts it if available). He cares more about WHY the pattern is correct as in what it explains and what is the meaning it offers. He judges the trueness of a pattern by the robustness of its effects and its results. Now that I think about it I think that deep down they may be having the same debate that Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson had. As in "How do we determine what is true?". I do like both approaches but Rafe's (or should I say science's) approach is less useful in the context of a human life and the way a society organizes itself. Let me explain: As humans we are limited in our perceptions and we are not aware of all the relevant info about what is happening around us. And even if we were we do not have the processing capacity to use them like a computer would. As a result we cannot use a scientific approach to make all of our decisions (not even most of them) in a usefully timely manner. It would simply take too long for each and every decision. This is why we use patterns. Patterns are refined abstractions that convey not information but DISTILLED EXPERIENCE. When we follow a series of tested patterns we are drawing on the collective experience of all those before us that used and refined these same patterns. Evolutionary speaking we haven't evolved to care about how our decisions are correct but if they give the result we wish. Even science is subject to this instinct. We don't go bottom up when we create new theories. We do not compile them from a series of facts. We PROPOSE an effect/result (what we want or don't want to happen) and then we TEST the theory to see if it can actually deliver what we wish.

Jonathan gets a thumbs up in advance:)

Finally the talks have moved into an area 8m comfortable in. As above so below. Looking up in a cloud and seeing a face is seeing the pattern and then realizing that there's patterns above and we r a reflection of them. The patterns of everything physical are invisible to the naked eye. Need to start a podcast to better articulate my thghts. It's so annoying replying on a limited medium trying to explain complex ideas

Fascinating. I would be curious to know what Mr. Pageau made of a reading of the Yugoslav novel "Death and the Dervish" by Mehmed Selimovich.

I feel like The Master and His Emissary by McGhilchrist would have been of enormous use to this conversation

1:57:33, I think the links below will further explain what Jonathan is talking about if anyone's interested. Lord of Spirits podcast - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/atqceNuru87YoYk.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gtVidbJiyK2mfKs.html

Wingfeather Saga, Green Ember series, & Redwall Series are not epic literature but a move in that direction and steeped in Christianity. Wingfeather Saga, in particular, is likely closest to what you are looking for.

"Accept your ignorance first and you will, maybe learn something" Pride can hide under a layer of gentle and respectful talkativeness, just be humble and accept your ignorance then many doors will open up to you (maybe if you stay truly humbled). -We are not abstract beings. -Nothing is only it's principles. -knowing something is not simply knowing its principles. -replicability doesn't make something real, real things can be replicated and sometimes can't be. - persistance in time of an arrangement of molecules or "information" in a similar manner is not what makes something real, reality allows for the information to be arranged in that way for a period of time long or short but the arrangement and the persistance is not what makes that thing real. I sense that your main problem has to do with pride rather than intelligence, pride can blind you from seeing and understanding many things. Jonathan said that the conversation was getting stuck on the same place and you answered something like; I am happy with the way "I" articulated my own thoughts so you understand "me" better. That's why you guys are getting stuck on this issue, is not because of semantics, neither because of lack of clarity in the explanations, pride is in the middle. Can also be understood as a lack of grace.

I just listened to this video. Very interesting! But I think your questions or your framework to approach reality would find a better answer in a book like Luigi Giussani's "The Religious Sense" than in a discussion on symbolism. I am a professor and researcher on Darwinian medicine and at the same time religious. There are no contradictions - learned it from Giussani

25:38 Jonathan Pageau discusses the story of Judas and the woman who wanted to put perfume on Jesus’ feet

1:41:21 is there some more specificity you could apply here?

Rafe, if you haven't read the Chronicles of Shannara, check the series out. Quality fiction with Christian undertones throughout.

Harry Potter does contain the return of the king pattern. I think so at least. Harry's "crown" is his humility, self-sacrifice and agape love. He is in a linage of those who showed him the way. Beginning with his mother Lily Potter. Harry crushes the head of the serpent, the serpent bruises his heel. He becomes a muggle finally and shows what real magic is. In doing this he essentially undermines Volemort's source of power, which is based on scapegoating muggles, by volunatrily accepting his cross.

Does Yudkowski's essay "The Simple Truth" go any way to resolving the issues discussed in this conversation? (I would link to the essay, but KZfaq doesn't like external links, so I ask whoever reads this to look up the essay if they haven't read it before)

Rafe, is there any way you can post the full version somewhere? Great questions! I'm at 1:04:00 where Jonathan is speaking of masculine and feminine and the editing is disappointing

Is there an unedited version of this episode? The little cuts, I assume to cut out silence, are a bit confusing because it makes things feel unnatural and some of the body language is lost. Thank you for this podcast. EDIT: I guess it's not that bad actually. Throws me off only occasionally.

Also a file of prepositional information, no matter how large, doesn't make anything more real, just because you can have a file of propositions which are very low ontologically, ie the person had a nose hair 3 nanometers above their left nostril.

It wasn't "victimhood" - it wasn't a defeat or playing the victim. Christ is testimony of the reality of what this world is and what it does to those who represent the Truth. Jesus Christ earned the keys to heaven and Hades. His short life is the answer and it is simple not complex. The criminal on the cross gained his salvation - not because he was worthy but because he saw himself in complete honesty...and asked God directly for redemption and could confess his Sin to God honestly.

2:06:14 caricature is a jester

I always find Jonathon's approach difficult to categorise ... And I mean that in a respectful and deep manner. His insight is astounding and I thank you both for a) being and b) communing. And when Rafe says he can present he rationalist materialist epistemology better than the other presenters he mentions ... I would agree. You have the requisite humility and questioning to be able to do so. Rationality Rules ... Doesn't get that the rationality they present is finitely useful and adaptive and so a adjacent possible rationality is also necessary, nor takes into account the proleptic aspects (or teleology) necessary for a deep understanding of rationality (such as vervaeke slowly proposes in AFTMC)

Also, in Moana, the tribe leader would have lead his people into starvation do to his trauma experience with, I believe, his brother. His heart was in the right place not wanting his people to repeat the same mistake and die, but, he was blinded by that trauma. Moana saw through that and knew her people would starve. She discovered her people were a water discovery people and knew it was in the imprint of her ancestors to know how to navigate the ocean. Their tribe leader essentially became corrupt by his blinded heart and women intuitively see this in people because we are intouch with our emotions and are social. We nurture and heal, intuitively. I see Moana more like Joan of Ark. Also, the leader isn't a bad guy for his corruption do to life but he is indeed human and we shouldn't always follow blindly. It's known that men are corruptible, as women as well. I think do to fundamental Christianity, mostly the protestant reformation, women have been put in the background to a level God did not intend and women are coming back out saying hey, you forget we have this ability. We might see women coming way out, thinking we should become like men, but that's the natural pendulum of being suppressed for to long. You'll see the swing of the pendulum swing as far the other way as far as the suppression is relievent to them in life. As with all pendulum the energy will decrease, over time, and equalize out. I don't see Moana as trying to be masculine as she heals and guides by love, forgiveness, and intuition. She brings life and food and thriving back to her people. Let's not forget what ultimately happened to Joan of Ark after she did the same for her people. She still was cursified. The men and leaders were still currupt.

Joe Abercrombie is goulish good.

On the conformity of rebellion: this makes me wonder about the story and role of Satan in Abrahamic traditions and the peculiar need society seems to have for a scapegoat and an adversary as coping mechanisms for its own shortcomings. On behalf of those who were born to be bear the label 'counter culture," I say to the Overculture, your welcome! ^-_-^

So what rafe is saying is that looking at a face mechanically ie the eyes and nose and stuff will tell you whether the face contains relevant information, but the problem is that that determination process does not tell you whether you can get relevant information because a mechanically constructed face can end up being the false one whereas the face in the clouds was telling you the truth

I love Pageau, Being a Christian I wish more was explicated about Christianity’s role in the meaning crisis. The Christian narrative can make sense of the meaning crisis, But it rarely takes responsibility for its role in how we got here. We scapegoat atheists/materialists for the meaning crisis, when in reality, the hellfire threats of a proposition central Christianity made itself unpalatable (non-viable), as John V. would say. This is something I never hear brought up in dialogos between J.V and J.P. Unfortunately Pageau seems to brush past it if it’s brought up. I believe this to be a core point of reconciliation with Christianity and modern culture. People need to heal from the trauma brought on by this incredibly damaging version of Christianity. People cannot detach their connection with Christianity from its often horrible representatives. Pageau himself states he converted to Eastern Orthodox at some point in his life. Was he, as he mentioned with the yogis, “running away from something?” I don’t think so. Clearly he saw there was something missing that could be made up for within Orthodoxy.

49:30 That's where you are wrong Marcus. You may disguise yourself behind the name Rafe, but you're not fooling me. What gave it away? Minute 43:07 when you used the word "lot." As in to say: "The lot assigned to every man is suited to him, and suits him to itself." The very words of Marcus Aurelius. Only a true genius can say so much by saying so little. Haha! (Just so you know, I figured you out instantly, but I did however need the evidence to point you out [which you did not fail to provide]) Haha lol.

The divine feminine is mankind. We receive the seed of God to give birth to God within us and join in participation by being filled with God. We are the cup (feminine) in the image of God to be filled with God. The fulfillment of that is when we become one as he is one. Then we can reflect God and become the gateway to heaven's will come to manifest in the earth. God isn't a male, but his creative function to the universe is as masculine handiwork instead of feminine birthing from the body.

I do have to say that the divine feminine is expressed in lotr, but hardly. You could condense every portrayal of the feminine in all 3 of the books into 3 pages. However, once you go deep into the silmarillion, it's absolutely woven into the fabric of nearly every story. It's an integral part of the mythos

I apologize in advance if this is triggering to anyone, but I feel like Jonathan is dodging a bit, and Rafe is perhaps still too captured by his upbringing to consider it, but…I feel like somebody has to say it. It is definitely transgressive in current western society, but it is also true: In a proper hierarchy…the feminine is in submission to the masculine. It is impossible to have a functioning society where that is not the case. If you think of it in the symbolic sense of nature discussed here, it may be easier to accept. Unless nature is brought into submission, there is chaos and no society can hold together. When it comes to the Bible, God is Father. Abba. He/Him 😉. Always. Eve is made from Adam, called “woman” because she came out of man, and made as a helper for him. Mary is a human woman who submits herself to God’s will. “Let it be done unto me”. She is not divine. In fact, someone later says to Jesus, “blessed is the womb that bore you”, etc- and he responds, “no, blessed is he who hears the word of God and observes it”. Paul (who “liberal” Christians desperately wish didn’t exist) described the proper role of the wife in submission to her husband, as an analogy to the church’s proper relationship with Christ. Feminism is rebellion against the natural order, the natural hierarchy, which they have properly identified as “patriarchy”, whether you accept God or not. It is a rebellion against order itself, which causes chaos to reign. Now, having said all of those unsayable (but true) things, the Bible also makes it clear that the man, due to his position of authority, bears more responsibility, and will be judged more strictly. It also makes it clear that God values women equally to men in an eternal sense. And it characterizes all of the church in a feminine way in relation to God, as “the bride of Christ”. The feminine is thus always valuable, but it’s in submission to the masculine, up and down the symbolic hierarchy. I feel like Jonathan was dodging not to acknowledge that. And it is largely our failure as men to take our proper role and stand for it that is to blame for the feminine/chaos getting out of control. When some complain about “soy boys”, this is what they’re aiming at. We shrink away from our responsibilities, and mask it as being “male feminists”, or just “accepting the way things are”. To be fair, there are massive cultural forces arrayed against us at this point, and giving in to them to some degree is understandable. But things will never be fixed as long as it remains that way. To bring it down into the tangible roots of recent history, the modern era of feminism, including “sexual liberation” was largely instigated by an unruly male desire for sexual freedom, in which women have effectively been tricked into giving the worst men what they want. And as noted in the video, the traits held up as ideals for feminism are masculine traits, which gives the lie to the whole enterprise. And also leaves the feminine role in society unfilled, which disintegrates the family, and leaves nothing but a dog eat dog race to the bottom for everyone. The masculine is thus both unrestrained and directionless, and without meaning. The things I’ve said above have been understood and practiced for all of human history until about five minutes ago. The notion that we have somehow “progressed” beyond the natural order in these matters is not only false, it’s absurd. And that’s how you end up with the most extreme manifestations of the dogma that “gender is a social construct “. Which results in men (who would likely finish last against other males) entering women’s sports and dominating them. You could suppose that feminism is actually a scheme concocted by “beta males” to improve their reproductive odds. And that maybe the ultimate “beta male” is Satan. And the story is as much about the abdication of male responsibility as it is about female rebellion against the natural order. Which is something that Jordan Peterson has zeroed in on, intuitively. Especially on his first 12 rules - the antidote to chaos is responsibility. Chaos reigns because men have failed to take responsibility. Now, as a male who has grown up during this time period, I’m not saying that I’ve been perfect or immune. The forces arrayed against us have been overwhelming. But I also don’t lie to myself to try to convince myself that this is really how things should be. Or that we just have to accept it. Because I know in my bones that if we do, if there is no reversal, everything is going to collapse on our heads. So if we’re guaranteed doom if we stay where we are, the risk of standing up against these forces is actually less, because there is some chance. And that…is actually the starting point of the “hero’s journey” archetypal pattern. See how it all fits? I think if he were to be 100% honest, Jonathan could not disagree with a single thing I just said.

I think I understand why this modern “scientific worldview” is such a dead end. The way Rafe talks about the world has little or no relation to how he EXPERIENCES the world. In order to view the world scientifically, you must first remove yourself from your primary experience of it. And that’s actually impossible

Thank you for this, but I really wish it wasn't so heavily edited. It's really jarring.

I don't know, I really feel the divine feminine identity with nature and chaos has to be more than just potentiality. When your framework for comprehending it is predicated solely on the divine revelations of men and when the women who do come into contact with the divine are mere side characters whose purpose is achieved only through their relation to men, it seems inevitable that one would have to maintain the idea through an ignorant veil of mystery. I happen to know many women who have had experiences with the divine and they all struggle with the Christian narrative. It doesn't provide them with an environment to cultivate their own spiritual experiences, on the contrary it demands of them the stability to produce and maintain that environment for the men in their lives, not themselves. They are commanded to be subservient to the husband in the family, to those with political voice in society, and to the men of authority in the church. They have no familial, social, or spiritual agency and given that there is nothing about being a woman that limits their conscious experience, why would their autonomy be suppressed? If they have a divine revelation that would serve to reorient the narrative, it's rejected by the system. I can't help but come to the conclusion that they're prisoners of a matrix programmed by men. Would anyone have really taken the book of revelations seriously if it were Mary Magdalene to have had the experience? Honestly, in the context of the narrative, that answer is no and that's a conflict I can't solve.

I find it fascinating to watch you struggle with these phenomenological concepts Rafe. I'm guessing but it seems your entire existence with parkour is phenomenologically based and yet the only thing you're willing to call true or real is scientific theory. It seems everything else you categorize as false or not real. Since every scientific theory gets displaced by the next one... oftentimes eradicating it completely... then one can logically conclude that the theories we now hold are not true... false by your definition.... Perhaps useful but by definition false. Therefore one can easily conclude that they are absolutely no different then your Aboriginal tribesmen burning bones and investigating cracks for hunting spots. They have their theory and it's practical uses just as we have our theories and our cell phones. I really don't see a difference other than modern materialistic hubris...

Left brain vs right brain. Masculine objective knowledge vs Féminine intuitive knowledge.

Man. I missed the post credit scene on the green knight, just watched it. Is the annoying cherry on the underwhelming icing of the overly stylised poorly cast cake. What a bore