Watching these has markedly improved my Scrabble skills.

I love what Jordan brings up about the inter-credo semantics problem. It reminds me of my relationship with my mother, who was a fundamentalist Christian. I fought with her throughout my teens and young adult life about the ways her religion didn't make sense, was contradictory, etc etc. When she was dying of cancer, her faith remained and it was something I decided to look at and admire. In order to do this I made the conscious decision to "translate" her religion to things I could accept more readily. For example when she talked about God, in my mind I would translate the word God to something like "universe" or Dao. Our relationship was transformed by this move and I was able to understand more of her and most importantly to not be in conflict as she died.

The Fact that I am able to listen to a conversation like this... is kind of a Singularity in itself.

There are so many issues here, I want to raise my hand every second. I would just say one thing now. One would benefit, in every design feature you come up with, to ask whether or not this feature already exists within established religions, because acting as if they don't is problematic and frightening. I will give only one example, the balance to what you call the "iron age hierarchies" , that is the organic network of mythos space "nodes" already exists in Christianity. We call it the communion of the saints. Holy people do not necessarily participate in the political authority of the church, many times they undermine it, yet they create a narrative and participatory network. But if you think you will get rid of hierarchy, I would say be careful, because it will come back to bite you every time you try to move from the meta-space down into the particular experience.

LOL, Jordan Hall's remark about JV's future $5000 suit! :) Too funny!

Another question worth asking; should it or shouldn't it be designed in a manner that enables its practitioners to (easily) pass it on to their children? Religions have effectively done this through story; and significant research points out that connecting such stories to the possible existence of metaphysical entities is a more powerful manner of conveying the essential message. You'd have to ask, can you teach children ethics, insight and morals in an equally effective manner when you tell them that the God(s) in the story does not (necessarily) exist? This might be worthwhile to consider. Alternatively and more briefly formulated: what is your low-resolution account of your high-resolution religionless religion, and is the low-resolution account also engaging?

There is a part of me that has always wanted to do the work you are doing here, and it is super grateful (and relieved) that you are not only doing the work, but that it does not feel “alone and unwanted.” A million thank you’s from that part, especially for sharing this early design video.

Thank you very much for sharing this video. Please keep the conversation going and public. These discussions are greatly appreciated!

These are my top conversational explorations on media right now. Two of my favorite thinkers. Please keep them coming and if you were to put these and to articulate these in a written format, it would be brilliant. Thank you for sharing! Keep the collaborative work going!

From CG Jung's Liber Novus a message from his soul: The new religion "expresses itself only in the transformation of human relations. Relations do not let themselves be replaced by the deepest knowledge, but at its visible level in a new ordering of human affairs." To add to the hologram vs photograph analogy, there is also the phenomenon of a Cathedra (From A Language to Map Consciousness of the Clairvision School): Cathedra The connection resulting from the combined energies of a group of people sitting together in silence. Main points and mechanisms From the moment you know about cathedras, the door is open for all sorts of discoveries. Each time you go to a concert, you may want to observe how the architecture of the hall interacts with the cathedra. And even if you have nothing to do with the Christian religion, it becomes fascinating to sit through mass in a large church and watch how people's energies gear into the high dome and vaulted ceilings. Then go and attend a ceremony in a Buddhist temple, and you will feel and sense how different the cathedra is. A cathedra isn't just the combined energy of a group, it is the interface between the group's presence and the presence of spiritual beings. The spiritual presence in a Buddhist temple is totally different from that in a Christian church. The concept of cathedra allows you to map this and objectify it in a tangible way. And if you ever run a meditation group, you will be able to put this knowledge into practice. Each time a group of people sit together, a cathedra is created - whether they like it or not. The more you are aware of the cathedra, the better you can monitor it. This means securing a clear space for your meditation group. (Knowledge Track Portal 1, 3.3.2) Origin of the word Clairvision mapping. From the Greek kathedra, 'chair'. At 21:29 to 22:45 Could the Google Translate ML in creating its meta language be reverse engineering the Sumerian Human assembly language pre-tower of Babel as portrayed in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash? Is Asherah is incarnating in the Google Cloud? add to the hologram vs photograph analogy, there is also the phenomenon of a Cathedra (From A Language to Map Consciousness of the Clairvision School): Cathedra The connection resulting from the combined energies of a group of people sitting together in silence. Main points and mechanisms From the moment you know about cathedras, the door is open for all sorts of discoveries. Each time you go to a concert, you may want to observe how the architecture of the hall interacts with the cathedra. And even if you have nothing to do with the Christian religion, it becomes fascinating to sit through mass in a large church and watch how people's energies gear into the high dome and vaulted ceilings. Then go and attend a ceremony in a Buddhist temple, and you will feel and sense how different the cathedra is. A cathedra isn't just the combined energy of a group, it is the interface between the group's presence and the presence of spiritual beings. The spiritual presence in a Buddhist temple is totally different from that in a Christian church. The concept of cathedra allows you to map this and objectify it in a tangible way. And if you ever run a meditation group, you will be able to put this knowledge into practice. Each time a group of people sit together, a cathedra is created - whether they like it or not. The more you are aware of the cathedra, the better you can monitor it. This means securing a clear space for your meditation group. (Knowledge Track Portal 1, 3.3.2) Origin of the word Clairvision mapping. From the Greek kathedra, 'chair'. At 21:29 to 22:45 Could the Google Translate ML in creating its meta language be reverse engineering the Sumerian Human assembly language pre-tower of Babel as portrayed in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash? Is Asherah is incarnating in the Google Cloud?

You guys are jamming there is a new song that is coming thank you so much for this talk I am grateful to be in this community🦋🕊🌷

Thank you. Feeling blessed to listen to you guys.

Thanks John and Jordan.

Really looking forward to the book!

It was a dizzying pleasure to eavesdrop.

it´s really great to see the two of you getting sharing this conversation. From what I have seen from both of you I am intrigued. John, your lectures on awakening from the meaning-crisis are of the best ever. I also like the attempted synthesis of what is going on you Jordan provided with red and blue church. (sorry my german grammar plays in, probably) Now, my sense is, that there is a flaw in the setup. Of course, I am not sure. There are at least two lines that my suspicion is based on: 1. a religion that is no religion (let´s ignore the obvious contradiction) - for whom? As far as I followed the argumentation: or those who subscribe to a "scientific" or secular worldview. That I understand (correct me if I am wrong) mainly in a belief in "one world", not a seeming reality and a true reality (and so forth). And what should it provide? Answer: the former functionality of religion (or rather religio; and not the former). Or: it should provide relevance realization throughout the whole stack (could this be called alignment, coherence within the individual?). This stack are conceptualy the participatory up to the propositional knowing. Plus cultural or collective coherence and alignment. Do I get this right? If so, how come you assume that the design needs to understand the functionality first (non-negotiable)? Or did I misunderstand? Is the non-negotiable the desired outcome of personal wisdom and collective coherence? If so, how is this not a great (call it phallic) vision, embarking on a narrative? There´s something I don´t seem to quite understand here... 2. Maybe related to the first point - in a weird way that I struggle to express. I need to express in simple terms. What should people do? What should I do? This is the classic question of ethics. One very practical approach here is, to contribute to your best knowing to the wellbeing of society (which seems to be another major aspect of surfacing meaning; kind of the Peterson promoted way). Now, this society seems to be severely corrupted - we need an update. We need a win-win-win structure of incentives as your friend D. Schmachtenberger points out so skillfully. How does your project align with this? It seems like you are suggesting to design this on paper first, to get the ethics right and then act (I know this is not fully true, apologies for the provocation, it´s for the sake of the argument). I really appreciate what you are doing and providing. As having been in Ken Wilbers stuff for a long time in my youth, the all quadrants all levels comes to mind, the co-evolution of culture, self, physical structure (merge with tech) and societal structure (...win-win-win). Maybe I am mishearing and project a one (or two) quadrant approach in your project. With much love and respect

Amazing conversation.. My head is exploding....almost. Look forward to next one.

When designing a new religion do you think it is worth thinking about the warning from multiple places in the Upanishads (the first religion). "In darkness are those for whom the divine is transcendent only, and in greater darkness are those for whom the divine immanent only..."

I can see the utility and necessity to conversation of this direction. How it enters the curvature of demands in today's world will need minds like these.

Jordan Hall was using the Photograph-Hologram metaphor for describing the aggregationally-increasingly-participatory descriptive-communicational capacity of the group (or something similar to that Idea)... ...and I wanted to point out that #photogrammetry is the technique in which you capture a set of photos from different perspectives of an object or scene, from where you start building a #PointCloud which represents a #metaobject that has the potential of expressing more resolution than that which can be expressed from any single location. If done correctly, each new individual representation of the object feeds back into a more clear resolution of the metaobject appreciated in any future iteration. #FreeAssociation: This made me immediately find a parallel between Game~B (as what it could be interpreted as: the forever positive ascension of humanity and each human being to a progressively divinity state)... ...and Terence McKenna's "Transcendental Object at the End of Time" Meaning that: We could interpret "The Transcendental Object at the End of Time" as "That Object which is: The Game of civilization perfectly played for all" (maybe even in a way in which it was able to technologically avoid/skip/modify/dominate the very own strate in which reality runs, let that be quantum physics, or anything that comes after) Does this Makes any sense ?

Lonergan's idea of different levels of consciousness with insight as the basic category overlay this with Max Scheler's hierarchy of values.

Link to that letter would be great. The project you two are working on is compelling.

The religion that is not a religion is enlightenment. It is here, it is evolving in spite of the four horsemen and will ironically come to solidly ground many of the presuppositions that support many religions. I recently had a discussion with my thirty year old nephew about the possibility of a scientific discovery that would appear to everyone like the second coming of Christ. He does not appear to be a typical Christian but he has deep strongly held beliefs in Christianity and (to my dismay) is even dubious about evolution. Nevertheless he admitted to me that if there were a scientific discovery that would strike everyone at once as being revolutionary but made sense to all at the same time and fit with the two commandments left by Christ then it could be what the Bible was talking about. It feels to me that Game B is the new scientific discovery that everyone already feels in their gut but cannot explain. It sometimes feels like our conscience but other times it feels like bliss, it seems to advise action that will not be in our self interest but is still somehow true and good. We have mistakenly named these feelings and behaviours that are spawned by them as altruism and relegated it to the fringe along with other behaviour that is confused and self-destructive yet said to be coming from a good place. Altruistic people are sweet but they are not people we want to emulate if we want to be a BadAss and succeed in this world. There just does not seem to be any rational arguments for altruism. There is no rational argument for altruism because many of the feelings that produce altruism are generated by billions of stimuli that constantly bombard our senses but sit outside our current shared relevance realization. John Vervaeke's work on the scientific basis for intuition illuminates that point eloquently while Jordan Hall's insights on the early adoption of Game B suggests that these scientific discoveries may be used to map out and explain many of the behaviours that run counter to Game B principles. In his series on Escaping from the Meaning Crisis, John has pointed out that there are billions of things happening around us that we cannot begin to pay attention to because we would go mad if we did so and have evolved to pay attention to a minute percentage of these stimuli because they have relevance to us somehow (I am paraphrasing here John, so please feel free to correct me). But that does not mean that what is perceived as relevant stays static. We are constantly shifting what is relevant to us as things on the periphery and far beyond our tiny focus push in on the edges in different ways as vague feelings. Because they lie outside of our feeble sensemaking apparatus we tend to label these feelings as intuition. Jordan Hall has been working on Game B concepts for many years, was one of the founders of the idea at the Santa Fe institute and is even credited with coining the term Game B. In a recent conversation with another of Game B's founders, Jim Rutt, Jordan postulated that everyone has been playing Game B throughout human history but mostly at zero or a very low level. Whenever we have a trade off between what we think we need to do to survive and what we feel deep down is right, we are conscious of and playing Game B. We all have everything we need to play Game B because we have always been playing it. All that is needed to increase the level of participation is value. Real scientific and common sense value must be discovered in Game B for the level of participation to increase. Many of those values have already been discovered but now only need to be scientifically attributed to Game B. This task is simplified if we use John's work to reclassify altruism.Those feelings that we thought were our conscience or foolish altruistic motives are instead revealed to be stimuli beyond the periphery of our relevance realization mechanism. They are telling us that certain seemingly pleasurable or BadAss behaviours will eventually hurt us or the ones we love while other seemingly commonplace or even averse behaviours will bring us a deep feeling of meaning, contentment and sometimes even unexplainable bliss. In other words, following the deep sense of whats right (the principles of Game B) will dramatically improve our contentment, meaning and lasting pleasure right here and right now while eradicating the meaning crisis. Seen in this light then altruism is nothing but enlightened self interest that can be demonstrated using the Scientific Model. At that point there is no more need for a religion since this is the very ground that sits beneath most religions. Christ's two commandments were: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Game B is revolutionary because it is a scientific discovery that feels right when we think about it. Everyone can teach and model this to a child as well as use it through the arc of their own development. It also offers the possibility of revivifying instead of usurping old religions and helping them to weed out their own bad actors. We are already playing Game B, now lets just up our game.

Brilliant session; I'm grateful you guys did this and shared it. Jumping off a point made by 'Luke' in these comments: In response to Alexander's Bard's critiquing the current lack of a "phallic vision" / utopic narrative: the narrative of "awakening from the meaning crisis" (particularly how that term suggests various meaningful wellsprings such as Buddhism, enlightenment, gnosis, and The Matrix) to address the meta-crisis - and providing the groundwork for a new religion unburdened by credal dominance - is a grand narrative already on its own - perhaps enough to start with rather than needing to look elsewhere. I think there is untapped and healthy potential that should be taken seriously in building a shared narrative and religious functionality (including practices) by starting from a grounding in the mythos of widely beloved art (even if in the form of a mass media franchise). As an example, in many circles of my generation ("millennials", fundamentally) I've found Pokemon to be a shared and beloved mythos (which continues, and dipped into a potentially emerging AR scene with Pokemon GO). From the beginning it has had a participatory element (link cables, now wifi, used for trading / battling), a dense mythos in terms of the type / battle system and creature taxonomy, while retaining some of the basic structure of Campbell's hero's journey, and crucially a deep connection to nature thanks to it's animistic Shinto roots (pre-axial in a way I think we need right now to address deep ecology) that would help afford a narrative / mythos / cosmic canopy for the essential task of environmental sustainability in the Anthropocene and preventing ecological collapse. Grounding a narrative in an aesthetic might also give it more flexibility by providing another shared strata for people to agree within if, say, an ethical dilemna within the early stages of the new religion of no religion is being debated. This issue of having no shared aesthetic / imagistic / ancient narrative ground, nor any spiritual ground, to draw back into harmony within during ethical disagreement is searingly obvious, particularly in the emerging and largely unconsciously developing psuedo-religions of Social Justice. I agree with both John and Jordan however that getting the functionality and methodology clear from the start is crucial, however. The narrative / mythic element just seems like something that will eventually need integration. Various visions of futurism, like Bright Green Environmentalism, also seem like they could have a beneficial role here.

Thank you guys so much! What a wonderful conversation. and hey, to whoever is reading this, if you want to connect and talk about these things, send me a pm. I would love to jam. Greetings from Norway.

Beautiful flow to witness. I envision this community being held as a Decentralized Autonomous Organization in which ideas and insights can be linked to form a philosophical structure of dynamic truth- all contributors adding pieces to the whole

Tower of Babel.

It's been a year, is there a design doc??

Can someone please sum up what they came up with?

I think I’ve reached peak KZfaq words and thinking, I might just bow to the inevitable and go with Christianity, be as kind and grateful as I can be and get on with my life. :)

I haven't finished watching but I was just struck by a thought. If the purpose of developing this meta-psychotechnology and series of transformative practices is employed for the purpose of 'awakening from the meaning crisis', is it not already embedded within narrative? Is this here not the narrative? And if so, what is the relevance of this current narrative to our descendants? Is that not the perennial problem claimed to be solved by religious narratives, that by their nature pronounce a kind of ethical prima materia? I'm on board with what you two are developing, but I suppose the narrative element is where potential confounds begin rearing in my mind. Do we simply engineer a kind of cross cultural, hybrid engine that attempts to link the functional elements of the various mythos and consolidate them? The question for me becomes "into What?". In an age where no individual carries such allure, and many have been dispelled of a certain variety of superstition (save for those exposed to cults and religious fundamentalism), peak narrative seems to max out with HBO and Harry Potter. I see how these resonate with us and our descendants already, but of course none of these narratives serve the same function as religious narrative and don't attempt to. But it's curious to think what could. The only thing akin to what you guys are talking about as far as I can tell is the New Age movement, and the vague metanarrative that has developed from there. It's full of holes and came together in a distributed fashion, and so it's a stretch to call it a metanarrative, but nonetheless when I participate in events like Burning Man (or the Australian equivalent), many of these same conversations are being had. Some people are doing great work and distributing their ideas among people who consistently repeat versions of a somewhat cohesive, ecologically and spiritually minded narrative. I feel the potential of human beings at our best amongst these ecology of practices, rituals, art and narrative that seem to be ticking many of the boxes you're looking for except the all important "scientifically verified functionality". I believe the psychedelic community is a space where your work could be integrated, where a lot of important community building has already occurred, but the self-correcting mechanisms are either non-existent or weak. Sorry I didn't manage to condense all of that to something more appropriate ^^

Could you please speak about these ideas with Noam Chomsky? I think we would all benefit by that conversation.

I like the hologram analogy. With accelerating tech, distributed intelligence and decision-making power is essential. Top-down hierarchies get swamped with information flowing up and orders flowing down. In-boxes get swamped. Out-boxes grow empty. Any organization, not just a religion or a company, must come to grips with the fact that for system as system, there can be no such thing as THE expert or THE commander.

Jordan tuning in from another galaxy..

Somehow, I always feel that, like in the example of the brain used here, trying to scale concepts does what both complex systems analysis and symbolism already do or try to do. Doesn't it seem like a common language between the two might become the tool that the mythos in question would likely articulate?

... what could possibly go wrong.

I'm happy Jordan brought up the meta language developed by Google, the implications are staggering as to how useful that could be in understanding some kind of commonality across meaning making systems. I think though that there might be a problem with trying to eliminate the narrative aspect to the religion that's not a religion. I'm a representational artist, and have taken a big interest into narratives and the purpose they serve for people. I think it's a very important aspect of learning as narratives can be layered in both literal and metaphorical meanings which intertwine into something harmonious. So far in watching a lot of both John's and Jordan's work, I think this notion might be the weakest link. I feel narrative is a part of our development and our nature in learning about, and understanding the world with, and if that isn't taken seriously the religion that's not a religion will have no "teeth," in that while it's methods are sound, and it can get a person "there," because it doesn't possess a narrative people will create one themselves. Without a story it will fractionate into as many cults as pockets of people who are practicing it, it has the risk of being hijacked by any capable story teller, and used for their own means.

This reminds me somewhat of the Unity church. I attended one once and the sermon was focused on a singular subject pulling from many different holy books, the Torah, Bible, and Quran.

15 minutes in and literally have understood nothing these guys have said

The paradox that happens comes from trying to establish a fixed result, a religion, that by its static nature will hamper engagement by others. To engage people, the religion must be a springboard and not fixed! Aside from this, how does the religion withstand intrusion by business interests? How does the idea become more robust? What fundamental shift occurs that disarms business, something like those with resources paying for those without? That's what I would do, I would set up a community that pays for the next village to be set up, so those people (the ones without) don't need a down payment, and half their fees also go to buying the next village, and so on. With the internet and the DIY community I think we're almost there, just have to tweak the economic system so people have the head space to engage with philosophy and spiritual matters. The spirituality would happen naturally.

Is there a link to the desiderata?

Some summaries of key points in the discussion in my understanding (please correct any apparent misreadings): A need to separate Axial 2-World anagogic path from syncing with iron age beauracracy and power hierachy (the religion of no religion must cut out the pattern of elites getting privelaged access to religious functionality / higher levels / wisdom (?)) Hall on distinction between photograph and hologram. With the photograph (most modern world religions and ideologies) when cut in half, you have only 50% of the picture, literally, missing entire sections; with the holograph (indigenous myths / animism, ect. - pre-axial? And hopefully (?) A future RoNR), cutting it in half gives you the whole thing but at 50% lower resolution. Similar to how most modern world religions and ideologies have a defined credo, whereas in indigenous myths / oral culture / animism, ect., the credo is reformulated and refined through bottom-up human interactions constantly. (Latter being preferable for RoNR?) Vervaeke adding on that this is how the parts of the brain function anyway (multi-apt, can exapt and shift to correct deficiencies, ect., rather than being a system of discrete units) and both agreed that designing a RoNR in this way ought to assist in its scalability (partly addressing PVK's critique) This kind of scaling is also not power-based unlike traditional religious hierarchies which partly mutually reinforced societal hierarchies (priests having special knowledge, ect.). Instead of power it is based on breadth, on capacity for participation. For instance, someone is trying to grok a part of the mythos of the RoNR, and the precise constellation of influences that would enable this is, say, an orphan boy in Bangkok: the kind of scalability afforded by a technology of mass communication also increases individual motivation to participate, and is antirivalrous.

Other than the use of the computer, it feels to me like this whole thing already exists within Christianity. Time for somebody to read Newman's essay on the development of Doctrine and get a good handle on the differences between organic development of knowledge versus corruption. Plus, he was just made a saint so you can actually ask for his help. 😇

Loving the song, even tough the lyrics confuse me. Now that I think about it, it is almost exactly like listening to a song in a different language. On some non propositional level I understand.

Is Johnny V always wearing a chain like that? Whoa mkay mkay cool man

I love the idea that Jordan posed about this new religion that is not a religion. I will paraphrase: We each hold the entire picture but give it more fidelity when we interact with each other. A fidelity from which we all benefit as a result when the improved picture is viewed by all. It feels like this is happening already. In a recent interview with Jim Rutt, Jordan said that everyone is playing Game B already but just at a very low or zero level. We feel it when we have to make a tradeoff between functioning effectively and doing what feels right at a deeper level. That deeper level feeling may just be our embodied minds processing the billions of stimuli that are invisible to our conscious everyday thinking telling us that these choices are not sustainable. In this model then Game B would not be a religion but rather just enlightenment taken to its next level. If we were able to look at the all the far reaching negative impacts of our decisions a different picture would emerge. We could immediately see how not paying others fairly for work, not telling the truth or causing more pain to someone than is necessary has very real negative impacts that we will eventually feel. If we could follow one negatively impacted person as they encounter others we could see how they spread this negativity like a virus until a seemingly unrelated negative event impacts us or our loved ones. Given this new information it becomes easier and feels more natural to act altruistically when it fact it is only enlightened self interest. But there are also very real immediate benefits to this seemingly altruistic behaviour. Research has shown that positive endorphins flow in increased amounts in people who perform these behaviours and those who benefit from them. But the most significant increases occur in those who observe these behaviours. In addition, the more of us that interact in this way based solely on this type of knowledge, the more the sharing of resources and information will seem just a very common sense thing to do since it feels good on so many levels and is entirely rational. The positive effects would multiply exponentially as people share information and are encouraged to each bring their unique gifts to the picture. Not everyone will be sold on this picture though since many of us are hooked on the juice provided by the wins in Game A. It will be difficult for detractors to undermine this new way of being however since it is based on reason but they will still try. They will come at it with everything they have since they are hooked on a juice that will be drying up. Many will fight very savagely, employing everything Game A affords them. But they will feel the pull of this new (but ancient) way as they look at others and see a place for themselves in the healthy communities that are forming around them. They will feel the truth of it and realize they cannot get underneath it. Most religions may be revivified because of this new scientific truth however and find that they now share a common language with those in the secular community. A language that has been whispering to us through what feels right at the deepest level.

This conversation led me to imagine what the conversations might have sounded like prior to the building of the tower of Babel! If this "project" ever gets "off the ground" so to speak, what will be the status and the gate of the non-sibscribers?

Community is the religion that isnt religion

I agree this is what we need. I trained in software engineering so I tend to use that lens. (new to the discussion tho... catching up :-))

I love John’s work and he uses a framework that allows us to analyze the religious experience but not sure about this. Sounds like a re-invention of the wheel.

Can someone please give me some context here? What's going on? What do they mean with a religion that's not a religion? Does Johnny V talk about this in one of his lectures that I missed? Thx

47:40 I like that perfect symmetry across all possible participants in the conversation instead of doing the scale in terms of power you're doing it in terms of capacity to participate which i think is a which is a fundamental difference and I'm wondering if there's actually as you're saying that oh yeah I almost felt like there's a key constantly moving back to this notion of scalability in the technological sense which you said the anti rival of scalability there's something very very close right there there's something about the degree to which you make that movement from power to capacity to participate there is an intrinsic motivation on the part of all participants to support the up gradient of the capacity to participate if you think about it there's like there's a shared map there's a shared orienting basis that everybody who increases their capacity to participate increases the richness and fidelity therefore the value of the orienting basis this thing that's being held at the meta level like it's something he'll develop over the possibility or at the level of the holograph that we're talking about not yet actualized but it is possibility the actualization comes afterwards you get the clarity then you get the reality in the actuality and so it's in my best interest at all times under every possible circumstance to support everyone in becoming more capable because the thing that they're contributing to is an unassailable commons.

Unbelievably interesting. I'm in. How can I help?

40 minutes in, they are not actually designing the religion (as the title suggests). Instead they are discussing processes that can be used to design it and some criteria that can be used to guide or evaluate the "goodness" of the design. Much of the Game~B material seems inchoate, but very interesting.

I was one of the first people interviewed in a book called "Sects, Cults, and Alternative Religions" years ago. The author was under a misapprehension that Unitarians reverence Attila the Hun. Fortunately, the second edition of the book had a more inoffensive title and the error was corrected. I'm watching this this evening instead of Johnson vs Corbyn. I have to try to preserve some sanity. I have designed a conceptual picture of contemporary Unitarianism in Britain, in which perennialism is a long standing but never dominant stream.

@~20 minutes, like augmented reality helping the factory worker, augmented reality, using IT, that reveals equivocations as you speak.

I wonder if they’re hamstringing the progress of this project by making the concept of religion so pivotal

The controversial figure of the Son of Man/Son of God in the Bible and Jesus' parables are so much easier to understand than this plot here where a bunch of thinkers are trying to birth a religiousless meta-religion with the help of AI and collected psychotechnologies. To understand Jesus, his life as a message, I do not need a high degree in cognitive sciences or philosophy, I just have to look into my own heart.

I don’t know it makes me think where are we in this civilizations process of dying before it can start a new birthing process rebuilding... valuable meaning comes from rebuilding the kingdom... Supporting the new king

Fiiiiiinally!

When your local philosophers get the middle age crisis:

If this project ever becomes more than just a dialogue between these two great thinkers, if it ever gets any legs anytime soon, I'd love to get involved and contribute to the development of this new universal religion that's not a religion. It's a priori obvious that our meaning crisis isn't just an individual tragedy but a collective one as well. At this point, I can't say that my own consciousness is evolved enough to see how this thing could possibly get a toe hold on the rock face of our present predicament. It seems the clock is ticking with the meta-crisis (see Bjorkman) and time may be running out. It seems more likely than not that our fragility is akin to the bronze age's; pretty soon we could all become toast if we don't quickly get a grip on crafting some meaningful collective meaning! Plus, an ascendency of a critical mass of tier-2 consciousness-embodying people (see Wilber) doesn't appear to be showing up quite fast enough or with sufficient numbers; we seem stuck in non-shared paradigms and self-other conflicts with too many of us not yet "grown-up" (Wilber again) enough to even consider the idea that there might be universal ideals, principles, ethics, wisdom to learn, teach and adopt. Alas, too many tier-1 religious persons see their own religion as needing to be the one and only universal religion that the rest of us should adopt. Properly viewed, this is as we should expect it to be. All that said, I can't think of a project that's more needed than this one is at our critically bifurcated junction between civilizational breakthrough and collapse. Count me in! Two other additional comments regarding the development of a religion that isn't a religion for the purposes of effectively dealing with our meaning crisis and the meta-crisis: 1. Hierarchies of domination and power are the kind of iron-age hierarchies that need to be dismantled in society at large. Yet, hierarchies of power cannot possibly be entirely avoided in any natural system nor in the social construction of a new ontological reality. For example, if a human being (a natural system) utilizes his/her mind and will to reform himself/herself in order to adopt a healthier lifestyle, these faculties (the mind and the will) combine in a hierarchal power structure to force the body to comply (if the body is reluctant, having been exposed to habit-forming addiction, for example). Positive hierarchies, therefore, ought to be embraced in the development of the non-religious religion even when horizontal networks are functional and necessary. Specifically, hierarchies of growth (see Wilber again) need to be fostered. In the non-religious religion, human beings across the developmental maturity spectrum need to be welcome (but not heavily proselytized; maybe warmly invited without pressure is better). These new adherents/congregants (virtual or actual) need to be served by existing individuals/bodies of lay membership and vice versa in order to be properly supported to advance the purposes of the new non-religious religion. BUT, leadership is wholly another story. Certain kinds of leadership may very well require tier-2 developmental maturity, for example. Where the selection of leaders is at issue, we cannot escape investing in positive and healthy hierarchies where power is transparently wielded for the benefit of the community. Hence, hierarchies of growth such as teacher-student relationships need fostering so that wisdom skills can be taught by those who already possess developmental competencies. New or re-exapted Epistemologies, methodologies, and ontologies related to individual and communal non-religious wisdom (applied personal and communal knowledge/skillsets) need dissemination and reinforcement. This will likely not nullify the power and utility of exemplified individual/communal praxes. 2. This conversation as of minute 47 seems largely delimited to the cognitive/psychological domain. This is fine and perfect as we consider who these two extraordinary thinkers are. Yet, other domains based in neuroscience, epigenetics, neuro-cardiology, physiology, and others need integration into future conversations and indeed, symposia, I suggest. For example, scientists and researchers have already identified that there is such a thing as heart intelligence and the wisdom of intentionality (sometimes called "gut" intelligence). In the human body and its electro-magnetic auric field, multiple nexuses of intelligence have been identified and measured. Historical biases toward the brain and mental cognition must be acknowledged and historical unawareness and ignorance of the several typologies of human intelligence need to be incorporated into the development of any universal non-religious religion. By doing so, the rate of uptake and scalability issues may be efficiently addressed by making the non-religious religion germane and attractive to those who are already preparing themselves to synchronically and serendipitously rendezvous with this emerging conversation and the new non-religious religion-in-utero. In this way, we may expeditiously address the meta-crisis at the earliest possible date.

44:00 in regards to the analogy of the hologram (versus a photograph) being representative of how all humans relate to a new meta-meaning system: to me, it feels like this process will occur. But only as we all integrate, process, and attempt to reckon with a societal collapse (or at least the western modality of socioeconomic civic structure) and attempt to create something new from its ashes. It seems that will be the source (& motivation) for all of us embracing a new and UNIFIED culture, upgraded ethos, and a newfound reverence for novel & innovative meaning/wisdom systems. I so direly hope a new mass enlightenment comes about through voluntary awakening, but it doesn't feel like the majority of us will confront the failures (& come to terms with our individual contributions to them) until we are all absolutely forced to do so -- especially those profiting from the existing structure. Which will absolutely result in more pain, death, impoverishment than necessary. Prove me wrong. I feel like I am being too much of a cynic here.

I'm commenting after watching the first 10 mins. This might be more of a 'note to self'. I'm concerned that they are talking about " 'THE' religion that is not a religion", rather than using the 'A' article. My thought is that such a practice would be evolving and could take many forms and at the same time these forms could be guided by common principles. I will have to watch on to see where they get to with this and perhaps edit this comment later.

You may already know this but hedgefunds like Ray Dalios use computer algorithms during their meetings to arrive at better collective decisions that compensate for personal biases. This technology applied to philosophy/science could be so powerful.

Whoa... Google Translate invented a meta-language?! 🤯

The answer to the meaning crisis is 42.

Is no going to mention how the dialog ended. Lol

In the first 12 minutes, the way that JV talks about reverse engineering from existing religions almost sounds like extracting medicinal substances from plants. Plants have developed organically via evolution as have religions. There are active ingredients in each which we want to employ for beneficial ends. But to be sure we understand the active ingredients, we need to test them scientifically; like extracting and concentrating CBD oils from hemp for pain relief. My first reaction is that the religious among us may object to that; they probably don’t see religion as decomposable in this way. Still, non-religious people may not be bothered.

5:29 wait, your sentence appears to presuppose that artistic experience isn't part of learning how to improve problem formulation

How will this new religion (that's not a religion) reach and entice everyone in the community to follow? From young to old, male and female, low IQ and high IQ, poor and rich, strong and weak?

That moment when you find the perfect analagous example for your own theory via a story/narrative (humans love these) of how a reputable thinker's theory is exemplified in a current event (that is socially relevant) 22:57 I'll be using this one to explain your idea of the basis for your religion of no religion.

I predict another name change ... Jordan Greenscreen.

@John Vervaeke The meta-semantic machine y'all speak of *kinda* exists already. GPT-2, created by OpenAI. Having read a good chunk of the Internet, it has mapped a meta-space of human concepts and narratives, and can be used to creatively generate new narrative threads. For instance, I used www.talktotransformer.com to prompt GPT-2 with the bracketed text below, and it continued with the non-bracketed text... - - - [[[Here are the features of the Religion That Is Not a Religion... 1. Includes a meta-psychotechnology for spontaneous collaborative wisdom generation between 2 or more individuals 2. Prioritizes but does not mandate a collective intelligence approach to problem-solving 3. Generates]]] vernacular, rituals and beliefs at all levels of cultural structure 4. Encourages free and open expression of new thought by its practitioners, even if this means unorthodox ideas, ideas that are contrary to existing belief systems, or ideas that are at odds with current culture 5. Does not rely on a hierarchical system of authority for its legitimacy 6. Does not depend on an established authority or set of institutions to serve as a filter of knowledge or as a vehicle for controlling or limiting the flow of new ideas - - - In the ballpark, right? Great thing is you can generate multiple sample continuations from the same prompt, making it quick and easy to explore the meta-space. More here: openai.com/blog/better-language-models/

Sometimes I feel like we are all tiny flashlights in an infinite dark. But such are the Stars. The religion that’s not a religion. Some one will always want to “build a better mouse trap.” How’s that for mythopoetic? I’ve recently had a reintroduction to Christianity via a 1960s film called king of kings and the sermon on the mount, probably the most important of Jesus’s teachings. Seems to me that humans are quite ingenuous, and can create the perfect religion, in order to serve its “functionality” as you put it. We ha e built the perfect phone, etc. the story of Christ could very well have been cobbled together from so many previous mystical experiences and cults. Molded and perfected to give the people what they want. (“The line for tickets starts here!”$).mostly extreme comfort. I. E. “Lillys in the field”. And the feeling that one is absolutely LOvED by God, and that divine bliss awaits. It’s truly an infantile fantasy. The problem is that without the mythopoetic metaphors, and ecstatic offerings of the original “timeless visions” as Jospeh Campbell puts it, a new religion will never beat the old ones. It’s like K-Pop verses Franz Lizt Now that my doubts are out of the way, I appreciate your rigor, aim and concepts. I would advise avoiding one big trap from the many “new age” spiritual movements. And that is the almost unavoidable creation of in group out group atmosphere, the “I’m more Spiritual than you.” Mentality. That’s what Iike about the time-honored art-science of astrology. Every person, moment and experience is Spiritual. “ The Kingdom of God is spread upon the Earth. You just don’t see it.”

Ha, let me rephrase this video or at least the bit that I liked - the hologram was removed from the individual by means of removing God/meaning from the individual, while nature/hologram/God was removed by confusing Time, the religion that is not a religion is bringing the 'know thy self' back to child development and the presence of growth and integration, and a return to the Divine year of feasts and connection and through a connection back to nature/astrology/cycles again integrating the individual and society through a non hierarchical coming together of self and society around natural meaning not abstract meaning dominated by a church father.

he looks like a different man in every one of his videos, here he is identical to Jack Dorsey.

Front row seat!

Funny, I had a vision of a temple with out religion. dedicated to the experience, short of Gaudí Sagrada familia,

Read Parable of the Sower. There is the religion without religion they are looking for.

I suppose it is some sort of of philosophical obligation to engage with hubris in our theoretical machinations of the world. Nevertheless, it seems obviously the height of hubris to design religion as a tool for controlling the direction of the human world, and thereby the entire world and beyond if we can reach it. And this hubris is also obviously inevitable. It's always...the same old story with these attempts. it is challenging to listen to the constellations of this conversation occurring online now. Mentally challenging in a good way. Great things are being discussed. But when you start in on this strain, the irreligious component of the whole context reminds me of a certain repeated scenario described in the Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, when there would be hundreds or thousands of various sects of philosophers, monks, yogis, ascetics, all sitting in a park and arguing and chattering in a lively way about all of these things, about everything under the Sun and the human condition. It is interesting too in this context that your goal was also Gautama's goal, creating a religious path that is not a religion in the traditional sense. Good luck improving on his work. And being understood past the first round of the telephone game, which I would say not even the first Pali sutras managed to accomplish on the large social scale.

There is an already-existing 'religion that is not a religion'. If you are interested, Google: "The Evolutionary Manifesto" and subsequent writings.

just a thought, game a: lagrangian game b: hamiltonian

Cyborg psychotechnology

Embody first, then describe

Jordans background is a little distracting... both intellectually and in terms of that cheesy image.

These are some super smart cats...for Real. But I fear that the project they are on to, while well intentioned, is flawed in that it is not founded in an act or event. By that I mean for instance, Socrates and Christ's execution, Luther's stand; collective moves like the American, French and Russian revolutions. Even Jordan Peterson's heat was generated by the act of standing in public before the C-16 Inquisition. I mean I think maybe a religion - non religion, designed in cyber test-tube might have some cache for a handful of hep intellectuals but will ultimately be built on sand. Don't get me wrong; I think the goals are noble, but it lacks the seal of history. Then again, you wait around long enough, the myth machine might get some plug. Course we all might be dead by then...but then again whose counting. PS: I totally agree with the lads take on Peterson's Hollywood turn.

This video is 3 years old as I write this, so I don't know if you'll see it. But here goes. Two points I want to make. You spoke of creating a mythos, a unifying story, for the religion that is not a religion. I think this is a mistaken application of iron-age thinking. What is needed is not to create a central top-down story all must embrace, but to *network* existing stories in a way that performatively undermines the iron-age hierarchy. So (for instance), in the USA, we need to exapt Jesus. There is certainly plenty of ammo in the Bible to support this shift away from hierarchies to networks of agape. The other error I think you might be making is your insistence that you completely finish the mental model before beginning construction. I believe a dialectic is needed between experience and theory, if we are to truly achieve a fittedness to the noetic environment we find ourselves in. Beware the seduction of academic elegance. We don't need an algorithm, but a heuristic. Your work is tremendously exciting and inspirational. Keep going!

The current main stream narrative is lazy at best and destructive at worst. A real problem in the way it has been implemented and carried out in society without proper thinking behind it.

Scientific theological mimicry. What could possibly go wrong?

Anyone out there speak English? I too would like to join the conversation and "religion that is not a religion" but it seems to be the preserve of the academic elite? Really??!! Come on John - you as a student of Buddhism should know that the Buddha would have made it his business to "let the simple in" . . . I gave up on following you or Jordan because you are all just too Smart . . .

The completely new way of approaching Truth is through the transcendence of thought itself You do not SEE how thought is exactly that which projects the state of delusion You are trying so desperately to be free of Guys, it's that basic. I say this and yet they will go back to trying to find conclusion within thought An thusly the cycle of Samsara continues... John, thought IS EXACTLY the delusion you are trying to escape. Can you stop thinking for more than a few seconds at a time? Stop the bla bla bla and investigate that situation You must realize the PURPOSE of thought and the REASON why this world exists. Until these are realized you will continue to flounder in complexity and vagueness All of these discourses. All of the discussions about "getting closer". Tell me then, in the most succinct manner possible: 1. What is the reason for your life/this world? 2. How does this reason become fulfilled? If you are close to the ultimate truth then you must be able to express it clearly and concisely, no?

I'm only 20 minute in and have to stop. I've been up all night fuming over this video. Let's cut to the chase. The meta-psychotechnology you're looking for is words. The spoken word, the written word. Wikipedia is garbage, stop talking about what "cybertechnologies" can do when language itself is in shambles. And for the love of god never talk about "wedding" humans and technologies again. "The Mechanical Bride" is the best three-word formulation of the meaning crisis-the zombie-mythology problem-ever uttered. McLuhan did ALL the heavy lifting on formulating the problem decades ago. While the term "psychotechnology", as used by Vervaeke, is the coinage by fellow University of Toronto professor Derrick de Kerckhove, two-decade director of The McLuhan Center, I don't fault him for not knowing anything about this because he's never quoted or alluded to McLuhan. But Jordan Hall has quoted and referred to McLuhan *many times*, and yet his absolute ignorance is betrayed entirely in this dialogue. The problem is not being properly formulated. Let me try an off-the-cuff formulation of the problem which is, at least, *far better* than the formulation implied in this video with this whole cross-framework equivocation of jargon terms nonsense. (Seriously.... using "cybertechnology" to "locate" words in "semantic space" is like sub-Hercules choosing to refloor the Augean stables with shiny new horse-shit parquet.) The reason that people have to fragment their minds into a million incommensurable frameworks full of cross-comparative equivocations in terms is because the printing press FUCKED UP LANGUAGE half a millennia ago! Knowledge has fractured into a million specialisms, each with their own know-how, devoid of relation with other specialties, and true artists can't re-knit the rags and unraveling threads quickly enough. You can't fix that with a fucking algorithm trawling the texts of Project Gutenberg. The very idea Hall would try to quantify an inhuman scale of so-called "semantic space" to house a million disparate models and hope to suture them together and shake-out some unknowable, proprietary meta-truth about "located terms" that only a computer-God can comprehend is actually existentially terrifying and the exemplification of diabolism. At this point in the night, I feel I'd do everything in my power to blast such a monstrosity to hell for the sake of humanity, you Victor Frankenstein megalomaniac. There is nothing agapic or wise about semantic processing. You want an explanation of your zombie apocalypse? All the poets, all the innovators, all the artists, are necrophiliacs, wed to the mediated dead, crying like Hamlet holding Yorick's skull in mute, abysmal contemplation of the horrors of the post-industrial, post-moral fallen world. Jane Austen was probably the last popular perceptor of the full-stack of reality whose feet touched the ground. The only people today who dare speak do so impotently for not being able to perceive. Hence McLuhan's constant insistence that the present is terrifying, and most people live in the past. All potential artists are just Rudy from Crime of the Century, living in fantasy from now on. Why did the Modern poets attempt a Herculean "purgation" on language? "Equivocation" of terms between incommensurate models and frameworks is a symptom of a break-down, owing the fragmentation of runaway solipsisms, and deformation in usage by undisciplined and minds. The glut of detritus in language usage, not-to-mention recent efforts of "deconstruction", as well as borrowing of terms like, oh say, "grammer" and "semantics" and "domain" and "framework" by mathematicians and computer scientists with zero-knowledge or experience with the terms in their original usage has destroyed language. Look at all the words Jordan uses. Seriously! "Domain"? "Framework"? "Lineage"? These are borrowed terms-mere metaphors-afforded pseudo-concreteness in the totally abstract imaginary space of the perceptually-crippled, non-resonant dialecticians, devoid of grammatical sensibility and ability! It's all inner-space, projected clumsily onto a false conception of the external, cutting everything to Procrustean, robotic, dead matter for machinic manipulation. This is the root of totalitarianism and behaviorism. McLuhan easily brushes away the idea of concepts bearing lineage. And the circumstances that leave that unacknowledged are the circumstances with perpetuate conditions leading to the subconscious apprehension of total cultural zombiefication! It sucks that only old-school English teachers understand how to treat words as sensitively a poets, with all the realizable uses which are promised to us by sham scientists and their primitive systems of symbolic manipulation. All professions of humility aside... this video is literally called "Vervaeke and Hall begin to design a religion that is not a religion." So... like... drop the pretenses, okay? The logos was already figured out in many gestalts... if you can't understand it then engage it and figure it out from your own grounding.

A cheap shot at JPB as the Intro? Is there not enough substance here to stand on its own? Kind of a low consciousness way to launch this.

You guys, we don’t need religion, we need economics... we are under the power structure of central banks and corporate structure. Printed money shareholders and peasants/slaves. We are in the same times as the romans. Just a new way of running the trade. Same power structure. And that’s all that needs to change. How we share and cultivate natural resources. - And we change that with technology , not morality. Open source blockchain solutions for people to work together past a corporate structure and private currency are better places to look for a new future than religion and personal morality..

I had a flash at 27:30 on "It has to actually be used". Semantics! Religions are used, as fences. I'm thinking religions serve best as disciplined ways of living. This neogod debt has little interest in that and we should call it coprotism, B$ness as use-you-all.

y'all need Jesus

We begin by reverse engineering religion? Like we did our technology... brilliant. Wait... how did that work out for us? Still kind of hollow, from my perspective.

what is that??? who is Jordan Hall? why are they discussing Jordan Peterson 5k$ suits? what does it have to do with relevance realisation and awakening from the meaning crisis? I am not a professional, but my impression from first minutes of conversation is that Jordan Hall is quite insecure status obsessed individual coming up with some 'metatheories' but not actually being a practitioner of anything real. can anyone correct me and see where I am getting deluded?

Loved listening ..interesting ideas...but the crappy earth pic behind the head. Just silly :) Presentation matters. No doubt that you have a contribution to make. But with silly backgrounds...nobody is gonna listen :)