It’s not that bad!

I'm just grateful to have a new video. Thank you!

How dare you Jonathan 😅

Yeh it’s bad… maybe you could get someone to help it

sounds kind of cool haha

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Jonny p on and on about fractal participation

Jonny p meme where he is always banging on about symbolic happening lol

10/10 comment

Me too. I'm a folk type artist of sorts and recently become a political artist.

This comments section doesn't disappoint 😂❤ God bless you all!

...sound "problems"?? 🤷🏻‍♂ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eJlyhMWHtbKddqM.html

Agree, wholeheartedly!! More more more!!!

So what got you to accept bronze age mythology as real (no offense, that's just how I view it)? I'm just curious, as another atheist. Were you also confused about whether Zeus and Thor existed or did you only investigate the Christian God? Why not the Islamic God as well? Genuinely interested. Thanks :) :) :).

@@radscorpion8 Religious epistemology. I found the work of Paul K Moser persuasive, Alvin Plantinga as well.

Moser's approach answers your question re Zeus Thor et al: "God" is a title denoting worthiness of worship; morally imperfect beings cannot be God, on this definition. So whether Zeus exists is a separate question from whether I ought regard him as God and dedicate my life to him. As for whether I believe Zeus, or the various other Gods exist, for most of them I'd just say I'm agnostic. I don't know, but supposing they did, which among them is worthy of my worship? None, as far as I know. They are morally deficient. Many of them are worthy of my concern, however. People today sacrifice their children to Moloch. People today worship Mammon. This may seem a strange way of speaking ("surely you are speaking figuratively?"). This strangeness is a consequence of our metaphysical presuppositions as modern people. Pageau often calls it "materialism", the prioritizing of literal truth over the metaphorical. I would disagree with Pageau on this point - I would call this *nominalism* rather than materialism. Modernity's presupposed nominalism (as opposed to *realism*) prioritizes the existence of concrete entities and events over the Forms, or patterns, with which those particulars participate. Insofar as human persons are giving body to (worshipping, acting for) the spirit of Zeus, or the spirit of Thor, or Santa Claus, or whomever, they are participating in a Form. Does that Form exist? Well, from a nominalist perspective, no; from a realist perspective, yes. Plato is a realist in this sense - he believes that the Form of the Circle, or Red, or Truth, are more real than any concrete instance of those categories. I won't say which is more real, the forms themselves or concrete instances of them (i.e. types or tokens), I don't have a view on that question; but this way of looking at the various gods that people have and do worship, radically changes your question. So, I hope I have explained why I do not worship those various other gods, and also explained my view as to the metaphysical existence of those gods.@@radscorpion8 There's a short, helpful essay by a twitter anon called Eigenrobot that explains this well from a rationalist standpoint. check it out: eigenrobot.substack.com/p/the-map-is-of-the-territory

​@jbsweeney1077 Reading Plato and seriously working through the theory of forms is what lead me to being an Orthodox Christian. In fact, my baptism is tomorrow.

Im so glad more people are becoming aware of this reality. Hate it when I’m the bad guy for humming along at a concert. It’s all so backwards.

Brilliant. Thanks for sharing. 🙏

Sounds like a larp

I know how you feel. I'm a game designer wrestling with these same thoughts. That's how I found this video. Comics seem like a great was to integrate great art into everyday life though.

Serbia < Bulgaria

​@@MisterCreeper97😂

I hate that elitist crap. "You don't understand because you're not enlightened like we are. "

I would rather listen to a 10 hour version of Oj Alijo Alijia

That’s so funny it’s sad…

Bogosian tries to be too clever - his experiment struck me as a complete flop.

I second that idea…That would indeed be an amazing conversation.

The first burning man was an informal event, basically a bunch of hippies getting together to cheer up a friend after a bad breakup. So perhaps there is a sort of symbolic burning away of one's past life to begin anew. I actually knew the guy who lit the first burning man, he was a fire eater called "Flamo Le Grand".

Boring

I think you can understand “participation” by thinking about Pageau’s experience as an orthodox Christian and icon carver. When you go to church, you don’t just observe the architecture, you use it for prayer, meditation, procession, etc. You don’t just listen to the musicians and priest, you respond. If you have an icon on your house, you don’t just look at it, you use it for prayer. The phenomenon of passively observing art seems to be relatively new and perhaps distinctly Western.

@@nathangale7702 I think that helps, though I would love if you could point me to any clarification Jonathan himself gives on the matter. I suppose you mean something like the distinction between decorative art and fine art, where decorative art beautifies something with a preexisting function, such as architecture or prayer, and fine art does not serve a practical purpose, and so is not normally "used" for a task other than its own appreciation. That's an interesting conjecture about passive art being distinctly Western; I hadn't perceived it that way before and had to examine my own assumptions. I'm largely ignorant of Chinese art history, but I understand there is a well-established tradition of what could be called fine art in the cultures of East Asia.

Stain glass windows, or paintings commissioned by the church or patrons would also be participatory, even though they are traditional fine arts. Art that would be used for the purpose of engaging in something other than only a consideration of the artist’s skill or vision alone. At least that is my take. As mentioned by @nathangal7702, Jonathan’s Orthodox experience of art in the church is not only as an observer. He speaks about it in the other video he refers to: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z72Jm5Vh2L-mo4U.htmlsi=NUyPXcM6IVM0X6Gv

@@sherieharkins2460 I don't know the scope of what you mean by patrons, but so far these examples seem to all be religious art. Is that essential? I'm unsure how to combine the examples into broader understanding. A painting seems to break the pattern so far. It is not participated with in the sense that an icon is, but if the preexisting context and meaning of the subject matter are sufficient to make it participatory, would an adaptation of a traditional story such as the Disney film adaptations of fairy tales also be participatory? There are many works of modern art that seem to have meaning beyond the artist's skill or vision alone. Some media (such as film) are naturally collaboratory, and frequently don't conform to a solitary vision. Some artists refuse to interpret their work in order to force the viewer to actively search for meaning. I appreciate the link you provided; unfortunately it leads to a video I've already seen, as I mentioned in my original comment. Jonathan mentions participation frequently, but I was never sure what he meant. I may watch again and search harder.

@@andrewweisbrod4506 No, not all participatory art is necessarily religious. I just brought that up to because it helps me understand Pageau's point of view. Many people like going to concerts in part because they like to sing along with their favorite bands. Some people like square dancing because their is a relationship between the caller and the dancers. Marina Abramovich used the participation of others as part of her performances. I guess you can think of it as a continuum. If you are purely a spectator, participation is about 0. If you are a spectator, but you are interacting with the artist, participation is low, but above 0. If the group is collectively "performing" together, participation is near maximum.

First sentence of the description

Two voices at once, unity in multiplicity

P. S. The Chair needs a man to sit in it to receive a purpose (even become a throne, maybe?). .

…I appreciate your frustration, but to the layman, these look the same.

It’s so over, I’m not even watching the video now