https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=nRyVK0OEUH4
Welcome everyone to another Voices with Hervéki. I’ve been so looking forward to this conversation, this second part, and I don’t think it’ll be the terminal part at all. That’s not what I want. This ongoing conversation that very often becomes a dialogos between myself and Bishop Maximus. In the previous episode, part one, I asked the bishop to sort of develop an argument, an overarching argument, about what are the unique resources that Eastern Orthodoxy has in order to help people respond to the meeting crisis. And why might that be the case and how might that be the case? And he was very carefully laying that out. He was making important comparisons between Eastern Orthodoxy and scholasticism, especially around the distinction within Eastern Orthodoxy between God’s energies and God’s essence and how that made available a different kind of interpretation of possible relationship with God and the kind of, there’s no word for it, no noun. I’ll use the most neutral term I know in philosophy, the kind of entity that God is, but even that I have to do that with. And the consequences of that. And as part and as a well situated part of that argument, he was talking about the transfiguration of neoplatonism within Christianity and how that contrasted with how it was taken up in scholasticism. And then there was some contrast also, especially around notions of participation and synergy with Protestantism. I found everything the bishop said to be a coherent, cogent argument. And I also recognized last time that we were not done the argument. I don’t even know if we were at the beginning of the end of the argument. But there’s a lot, a lot to keep going and I want to keep it going. And so, Bishop, again, welcome. How did you see the talk and is there anything you’d like to start with before we get back into the flow of the argument? Well, well, first of all, John, thank you so much for having me on your podcast. It’s really an honor to be able to speak with you and to be in this forum with you. I was really happy that we had the opportunity to speak last time. Last time I was a little bit dissatisfied with my explanations in that I thought I didn’t I wasn’t able to clarify some points to the extent that I would have liked. And I thought I jumped around a little bit. I hope maybe in this conversation I can structure what I’m going to say a little bit more coherently. But the the topic of the conversation, I think, is apart from being just interesting, I think is is important, especially especially to help us understand the way that the modern world got to be the way that it is. How we departed from traditional notions of understanding ourselves and our place in the world, how this is contributed to the to the meaning crisis and how I think and I hope that Orthodox Christianity offers perhaps some, well, as you said, resources to be able to address this. I’m not saying that we need to go back in time. That’s unrealistic. But I do think that if we if we have the proper principles, and I do believe that the Orthodox Church offers us those principles principles which have been ignored or sidelined in the intellectual tradition of the West over hundreds of years. I think that it can be of great aid to helping people either find meaning in their lives, or for us to try to slow down, halt, reverse. I don’t know how far we can go with the, the chaos that we have in society, apart from the, you know, the, the the idea of belonging to the church and and having that ultimately what we believe to be participation in God, which of course we consider to be the purpose of our lives. So, I’m, I’m really thrilled to be able to speak with you about about these topics, which are so so important. And how far we’ll get in this particular conversation I don’t know but I think any terrain that we cover is going to be positive. And if we can touch on maybe the eventually some of the points of contact between what I’m trying to elaborate of Orthodox theology and your own work, which I think has tremendous value. I think this could be a really positive thing. So, so thank you very much, john, and I’m really looking forward to this conversation. Excellent. So, Towards the end, we were touching on a deep point. I found it very deep about these interconnected ideas of, and you allowed me to use all three of these terms. Not that I need your permission but you know what I mean you you you didn’t find that that I was imposing, you know, participation, synergy, interpenetration. And you, you were starting, you were part of that was trying to indicate a different way in which Eastern Orthodoxy took up, you know, Platonism, and you wanted to emphasize a distinction. If I get the words wrong, please correct me but it was something like this. You see scholasticism taking up neoplatonism with with you I share the can, I don’t see the connections between neoplatonism and Protestantism. Jordan Cooper is trying to do that and I’m going to, I’m talking with him, or we’re going to actually record a video on it, and I want to hear what that looks like. But I share like I don’t see that. But, and, you know, I want to emphasize you, you’re treating everybody with respect, there’s no sense of antagonism so I’m, I’m not here, trying, I’m not here cheering. I’m here, trying to explicate the distinctions I heard you making. So, scholasticism sort of takes it up that you said something along those lines Protestantism has a much more vague relationship with it I think that’s fair. Eastern Orthodoxy transfigures neoplatonism and that’s that transfiguration that you think is a big part. I’m not saying you said it was all, but it’s a big part of how there are unique resources within Eastern Orthodoxy for addressing the meeting crisis, is that fair so far. Very fair. Yes. So, I want to, I want to pick that up I want I want to ask you, given that framework, and you can return and develop those points a little bit more if you wish. There’s anything you want to go back and say I want to get a little bit clear about that I welcome you to do that, but I want you to take that as sort of where we got to, and then continue to advance the argument, right for the way in which Eastern Orthodoxy transfigured neoplatonism and I, and I’m very open to something I’m going to say now. So I’m not this is not a jiu-jitsu move to on you or anything like that. There. I think. So I’ll say what I think and why I’m saying it and then, but it’s only to invite you. The integration, if you’ll allow me very broad things right now between logos, right, the whole thing of intelligibility and everything the neoplatonic tradition and agape in Christian neoplatonism is, is good. Like it gets close, helps make us wiser it gets us better comported towards reality. I see neoplatonism reaching towards it in the way they were trying to work with Eros and then Socratic Eros and Platonic and they’re trying, but Christianity comes in and makes this really, I mean, it’s a, I mean, not only is it a theological statement it’s a philosophically profound statement that God is agape. Right, which is one of the few bold identity statements made about. Now, I get it that’s not an exhaustive, you know, logical identity or anything like that but it is an identity statement and therefore it deserves to be taken very seriously, I think. And so I see that. And so, if, if you could as you’re building the argument about the transfiguration of neoplatonism. If you can say why you think this is an advance. And it doesn’t connect or is it convergent with the that point that I just made. Maybe it’s different. What’s the connections. If it. So my question is, can you. I have two requests, can you advance the argument on the transfiguration of neoplatonism. And then, can you put it into discussion with the point I just made about what I think is advantageous about Christian neoplatonism over sort of new Platonism, I mean, sorry, standard, not new, not new Platonism standard sort of pagan neoplatonism classical neoplatonism if I can put it that way. Is that a fair are those fair requests. They’re very fair requests john. And, well, if it. If I lose track of where I am please remind me. Because I, I tend to do that. Just, just to make a very initial statement with regards to what you just said, you know the, obviously the idea of love that the in in Christianity is, it’s probably the core idea idea of Christianity. You could make you could make an argument for faith as being the core value but I think, I think the argument for love being the core value is is a little bit stronger. It’s the greatest of these is love kind of argument right. I mean that is St. Paul, just, just to say that you’re not alone in making that claim. Right, I mean same same also says that these three remain faith open love the greatest of all this love. You know, that’s a, we’re going to take the argument from authority I think we have pretty good argument right there. So, so this idea that you said you know goddess love. It’s not just the philosophical idea, it’s not just an identity statement. But it is a, it is a practical guide for the way that we ought to be living our lives. And, and that of course is the ideal of, of the, of the Christian to live a life of love. And you know it’s repeated so many times in so many different ways in the Holy Scriptures. You know, great saying that the greatest amendment is the level of that God with all my heart and with all their strength and with all their mind and and love their neighbor as myself. Right. In these are all the lay all the long profits. I mean I don’t have to go through all the scriptural verses that that talk about this in the most superlative terms. So, so yes you know what, what the ancient Greek philosophers were exploring a little bit with the idea of arrows. I think you could say fun finds its, its completion in or full expression in the Christian idea of a copy of love and both love for God, which we can understand in, you know, a very broad sense, and your camera just why did my video just disappear. I’m going to pause us here. Yes, about apologize for that little lip. So, so yes there’s this there’s this fullness of, of love, and, and then some of the fathers of the church like some maximums for example, actually did try to tie it into the, to the idea of arrows. Yeah, yeah. You know, same maximums talks about the, you know, he actually uses the word. Maniacal maniacal love maniacal arrows, Oh, picking up on Plato. Right. Yeah. Yeah. But, you know, it’s this idea of, of, of ecstatic love the idea of, you know, something that’s so intense and so beyond. And I think that’s the humdrum of normal human experience that it can only be expressed in these, these superlative terms which which which almost sound offensive or offensive, but, but which in fact, express something which is in experience, which, which is transcendent to use. I use the word transcendent, because it’s a very broad word, and it covers a lot of ground. So, so if I if in the course of this conversation I say transcendent multiple times. It’s, it’s because I’m trying to refer to something beyond the reality that that we commonly experience, but without specifying exactly. Yeah, one point, because we can specify it in different terms and obviously different religious traditions specified in different ways and you also use the word transcendent if I’m mistaken. I do. And, and I’m, you know, when I use that word I’m not excluding what what you are meaning by that word is as well. Even though I’m probably, even though I’m probably referring to something more as well. Sure, I mean, I take it. Well, I want to I want to ask a question but I’ll just preface it by saying, you, it’s ecstatic standing beyond yourself you’re drawn beyond yourself but, but I mean I think the The other thing is that love is also that it’s not alien from us, it’s not transcendence in the sense that it’s, you know, that it’s taking us, you know it’s disconnecting us from ourselves or something like that. What I mean is love is also powerfully imminent. If I can put it that way too, or else it’s not love. And I’m not saying that it’s racist but the extatious is one that draws you, it doesn’t just point beyond you is what I’m trying to say. And you’re nodding so I think you’re agree with. So that leads me to a question. I’ll just afford the question by talking about St. Maximus and the use of maniacal love, ecstatic, let’s call it ecstatic that way we won’t get into too much confusion. You can have lots of fun if you say maniacal love. Yeah, yes you can. So, That ecstatic agapic love is something that is property human beings, like, I don’t hear you making the exclusivity argument. Now you can be making an exclusive argument about a kind of fullness and I’m not denying that, but I don’t hear you saying and only Christians experience agape or experience ecstatic love. That seems to me like you’re not saying that. So, so, no, I’m not, I’m not saying that. Good, good. So, although I would, I would affirm that Christianity is the religion, which most highlights that idea. Yes. I think, I got a glove. Yes, I think, I think, I think that’s one of the great strengths of Christianity. I think there’s a similar emphasis on Karuna and compassion and Buddhism. That’s also prioritizes it but I’m not going to challenge the claim you just made, I think. And that’s what I was trying to get out with the identity statement. It’s not just an identity statement that God is agape. Right. Yeah. And, okay. So, but does that mean that agape and in, in its deep interpenetration with logos, which I hear to be part of this whole Christian neoplatonic tradition. And I don’t want to draw you into weird heresies or anything. But I’m trying, I’m trying to get at. I’m trying to avoid a Minos paradox, which is, if there’s nothing in us that can recognize what’s real, what’s true or good or beautiful, then we can’t possibly learn it. Right. Is it, is it, is it, is it the way in which, and I’m agape and logos, and I mean by that that whole thing we’ve been talking about. Right, not just logic, but that whole capacity for, for proper ratio religio in relationship to what is true, good and beautiful. And the idea is that the love for what’s true and good and beautiful is most properly an agape club. And let me, let me try and be very clear what I mean. We don’t love it instrumentally. We don’t love it. We want it to exist, even if we, even if we do not exist, we want right we want truth, goodness and beauty to it. Therefore it is properly an anchor for meaning in life because meaning in life is to love something that to be connected to something that has a value and an existence beyond your own egocentric value and existence. The love of a mother of a love for their child as a prototypical non controversial example right and Jesus uses that so I’m not imposing anything either. So, is it our agape. I’m not going to use the word here logistic as opposed to logical, right because logical isn’t the word I want to use. Is it is our is our formative inclination, our sense that we can be called agapically to care about truth, goodness and beauty for its own sake and find it meaningful in the sense of meaning in life, not just semantic meaningful. Is that is that the capacity in us to recognize or receive. I’m unhappy with this sentence God, but that’s what I’m trying to get at. Like, it, I’m trying to, I’m trying to get because we stand beyond ourselves we’re called behind ourselves. Right. But as I said, we’re not I think I think I know where you’re going and I think I have. Okay, stop. You pick it up then you. I don’t want to, I don’t want to say I have the answer but I think there is an idea prominent in the fathers of the Orthodox Church that talks about something along the lines of what you’re saying. Okay, and so that’s the idea of news. Yes, yes, we were talking about this last time, and that was a point we ended on. So this is great pick this up please, Bishop. Okay, so, so the fathers of the church, make a distinction between logos and news. Yes. And it’s a, it’s a very important distinction, a very prominent distinction and say Maximus talk. Well, many, many of the fathers talk about it but say Maximus for example, states that they are not to be in opposition to each other, but rather they ought to be in in union with each other. And this is an example of a dyad. So Maximus talks a lot about dyads and the the unity of dyads and the, the proper relationship between diads which is the, the calcidonian model in other words the union of the two natures in Christ. The. All right, so, so when the fathers talk about news, obviously logos I don’t have to unpack that too much because that’s something you’re very familiar with. Because, of course, logos in, in Greek has many, has many meanings very broad term, it can it can refer to, I mean literally means word. It can mean by extension communication. It means reason. In the sense of the human mind rationality. It can also mean principle or reason, reason in the sense of, of why reason in the sense of cause. Yeah, yeah. So it has these broad meanings and you know when when the when ancient Greek authors use the word logos, and when the fathers of the church were also writing in Greek use the word logos. So there’s always this enormous subcontext with the word. Alright, so we have logos on the one hand in this particular context we’re referring to reason, human reason. We also have news. Now, news is often translated by the word mind in English. It’s off. It’s also translated by the word intellect if you read a lot of Orthodox texts. For example, the standard translation of the Philokalia and in English translates news, news by intellect, which I think is really misleading. It is tremendously I agree with you. And I think really the best word in English to to capture the largest part of the semantic range of the word news, and obviously, we’re words in different languages have different semantic ranges. Totally. And this is a huge issue with translation. But I think the word really in English that that captures this is consciousness. That’s, that’s, that’s much closer to what news is referring to in Greek texts, could I ask a question here, because there’s, I like this. But there’s two different senses, there’s a there’s a consciousness and they’re very important right now. I, and I’m offering the distinction as a way of helping you to clarify. There’s consciousness as the possession of qualia, the blueness of blue the greenness of green there’s all that, that’s sort of that nature of consciousness it centers around the heart problem. And there’s also consciousness in the functional sense, which is, you know, consciousness is what we bring into when we’re confronting very complex situations with a lot of ill-definedness a lot of novelty and its main function. Well, you know, I was going to argue this is this kind of, you know, it’s very sophisticated higher order kind of relevance realization. The, the, the, the verb that comes closest, which is often a translation of new of the verb noesis is noticing it’s our capacity to notice. Right. So I’m taught consciousness in that functional sense of to notice to size up to to zero in on to direct attention to refine awareness. I take it you’re using consciousness more in that sense, then I want to talk about qualia here or subjectivity or something like that because I don’t think those are actually proper to at least the, the Greek neoplateness. Is that fair or am I, am I. Yes, and to extend what you just said, the fathers of the church often connected explicitly with attention. Yes, yes. Attention. Yeah, yeah. So that, particularly in prayer. Yes. So, I mean, I mean, obviously the, when the fathers of the church, you talk about these, these topics. It’s not a an abstract philosophical conversation. It’s, it’s meant, it’s meant to be an explanation of very practical things, especially something like prayer. So, so the kind of tie this back into the original point. The, the fathers of the church say that the, the faculty that we use primarily, I don’t want to say exclusively but primarily in prayer is the news. Right. That makes sense to me. That makes perfect sense. And also, the faculty by which we perceive divine things is the news. It’s related to that news is also, I mean this is clearly the case in the neoplatonic tradition. It’s related to your ability to, to grasp a whole, like to to to see all at once, the oneness, the gestalt, because that that’s it. I believe, I believe that that’s so, I mean, obviously the fathers don’t use the word gestalt. No, no, no, of course not. I believe, I believe that to be so in my understanding my reading, my reading of others. So, so the idea is the following, that it is the, that human beings, the human soul has the faculty of news that that faculty is the, is the faculty by which we, we pray, by which we understand things in a, in a non rational way. Right. In a way that is distinct from logos, which is logic and which is going to be in some sense more linked to propositional. Right. Right. Propositional thought. So, the news is going to be understand in, in other senses, in the, in the perspectival and, and in the participatory. Right. So, so that news actually. Sorry for interrupting but I really want to get really careful. I hope I hope you’re not finding it disjointed. So is news. The proper, you know, is it the proper nexus, I don’t know what to say that the proper aligning and mutual affording a perspectival and participatory knowing is that also, I know that the Church Fathers are not saying this and I’m asking you, because we’re talking about population here. Right. That’s what we’re really. Yes. Yes. Right. And so, is it. That’s what I’m hearing you say I’m hearing you say no no I’m not. What I’m really talking about is that that thing that we exemplify and call, because consciousness does that consciousness is very much what’s at work in perspectival knowing clearly. So, it’s not just consciousness, but consciousness, insofar as it affords self consciousness is also bound up with our sense of identity, our selfhood our personhood, our participation. And so, is it not therefore news also a place, the, the, that mediates binds together co activates helps to afford the cooperation and perspectival and participatory knowing. Is that fair. I think that I think that’s fair. So so say great problem is that the, that the news is the faculty, by which we perceive divine things, and by which divine grace in whatever form that might come but more more particularly the higher levels. For example, the, the vision of the uncreated life that is a big theme in orthodox thought that this is this is the faculty, which has the capacity, so to speak, to be elevated up to divine things. That’s right. So, so what that means is that backtrack a little bit. We were talking about a copy. The, what that means is that something like a copy, which is going to be the expression of a copy is going to be mediated through the through the news, because we’re not simply talking about an emotion. No, no, but we’re talking about a deep kind of attention carrying, but also binding of the cell. Yes. Right. Right. That perspectival and participatory. Oh, this is brilliant. I just want to make sure I get. So, yes. And so a copy is the most fullest expression of that, that that integration of the perspectival and the participatory, the attention and the transformation of identity and the binding of identity. Is that correct. Yes. Hello. Yes. Okay, so you. I will study unstable internet connection. I apologize. So, so, so we can see here a connection between a copy, and for example, attention. Yes, you can’t, you know, is going to be is going to be expressed through attention towards something. So, so what that means is that since news is a natural quality faculty of the human person. Yeah, that means that those things which pertain to the news or or functions of the news are all also going to be natural, for example, a copy. And that on the one hand, it is. It is natural. Yes. But on the other hand, it can also be elevated. Right. But we believe that the elevation itself, but the elevation by which I mean, you know, divine grace, you know, you can think of that how we like to think about it. But the, that, that divine grace that the advent of divine grace, and the, the, to use the word that we use before the the interpenetration of divine grace within the human person, which is mediated through the faculty of the news. That this is not an unnatural state for human beings rather, it is the most natural state for human beings that right this is how we really ought to be, and that when we are not in this state. We are deficient that this is a deficient state. So, so that, first of all, was very good answer. Now, can I can just, you made a good argument about the deep relationship between news and agape. I, I would argue, I have argued, right, and if I’ve understood news correctly that news also has a profound connection to logos that without a capacity for news for noticing for sizing up for paying attention properly, relevance realization, etc. Then logos is also not available to us. And I’m wondering therefore does news, therefore also, is there a way in which news helps to explain the binding together of agape and logos. Is that the or my stretching here, but I mean, no, no, well I think it has to be that way. I don’t see I don’t see how it could be how it could be otherwise. Right. You know, think agree of Nisa. Yeah. Talks talks about news, he was one of the first fathers who spoke extensively about the news and. And he actually says that it’s, it’s the news, which is really what distinguishes human beings from animals. Right. Right. Now, you know, because normally, the normal argument that is the logos that distinguish humans being from animals. You know, you know, Aristotle’s definition of as a, as a rational mortal animal. Right. So, and I’m not saying that that argument isn’t founded on fathers, but, but think agree of Nisa does does make this really interesting and I think useful argument that that it’s more than the news which distinguishes the human, the human being. Yeah, and I, I would, I would actually venture to say, maybe I’m stepping out of bounds here. The bounds of my, my knowledge that that this actually might be relevant to modern conversations about artificial intelligence. Yes, I think it is and I think this is convergent with arguments I’ve been making about recursive relevance realization and the nature of insights and the nature of insight and and and you know, and the kinds of insights that are transformative and that they they allow people to like to step beyond themselves there’s an ecstatic dimension it’s not just an insight into this problem. But, right, it’s like with the way a child is moving through stages of development is that kind of systematic and systemic insight. So I think it does, I think that’s an important connection. In fact, I think the fact that the current I was just watching a video today about AI I think the current model of attention. Sorry the current model of intelligence deeply influenced explicitly in the video by the way by Hume makes this that intelligence is completely sort of instrumental. And it has nothing to do with how we’re caring. And for me I think that’s a fundamental mistake. Because I think attention is always, and I think this is a point that heidegger really brought to the fore, and has been picked up by 40 cogs I attention is always an act of caring. Right, because you fundamentally caring about this information rather than that information, because you’re caring about this situation because you’re caring about you and the other people that are in the situation. Right, that that that framework of care. You can’t, if you take it away you don’t have attention. Right. And so, I think what you’re doing, like, I think that’s proper that the. If you deserve the word intelligence then for just, you know, optimizing your ability to achieve a goal and has nothing to do with caring, then I can explicitly say that is disconnected from the entire Socratic platonic tradition of reason as most properly, what you care about I mean Socratic rationality is ultimately, what do you most care about. And why. And are you carrying in a way that is consistent and makes sense. I think you’re dead on. I think that there’s a big lacuna in. That’s why in fact, I’ve sort of given up the battle of trying to change the word intelligence I just say intelligence is relevance realization but whenever it’s recursive and trying to, and it has to be bound up with auto police and on the I build away from that. So but I’m sorry, you put your finger on a point that I’m making a lot of. It’s deeply convergent with a lot of arguments I’m making so. Yeah. If you are stepping beyond your bound of knowledge, it was a very, it was a very well placed stepped to my mind I think, I think there’s a lot of good argument for what you just said. Okay. Great. Do you want to go back to the original topic we were discussing about the transformation of, you know, first of all I want I want to regather because I think I think the the transfiguration. Again, I’m going to hold you to that word because you you you specify I use it and I know it’s a bold word. But it’s both for a reason you’re trying to. You are properly trying for. I don’t mean trying in the inept sense you’re you’re you’re aptly trying to bring a precision. And so I want to respect that. So, part, clearly not the part of that is, well, you’ve got this recognition in neoplatonism of a deep connection between logos and eros. And then eros has to be something than the standard Greek notion it’s reaching and then Christianity comes with a very bold claim about agape. And then you made this excellent argument that agape and noose are very connected and noose and logos are distinct and noose and logos though are also deeply connected and that’s how you can see all of these things being deeply integrated together and you don’t have that developed. There are precursors and I don’t think you deny this in neoplatonism, but this has been brought to a kind of clarity and coherence in the in Christian neoplatonism, especially in Eastern Orthodoxy that you don’t see in classical neoplatonism. Is that a fair summary of where we got to so far? Yes, but your hesitance. There’s something you want to add to it. Go ahead, please. Well, it’s I mean, it’s a fair summary of what we just just talked about. Although it’s I think by no means exhaustive. No, I prefer that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. Please continue then. Okay, so basically what I was trying to say last time we spoke is that there are maybe I would say three main points of divergence. Probably there’s more. Certainly there’s more, but there’s three that are salient to me. These three points would be would be rationalism. Yes. Metaphysics or theology. They kind of get mixed up together when we’re talking about these things. Yes, especially in especially in neoplatonism because neoplatonist metaphysics is theology. The elements of theology by proclas. Right. And the question of intellectualism. Yes. Okay, so those those three points I think are central. And the I think that that’s in those three points. Neoplatonism was deficient. And that it was, it was groping towards solutions to these three problems. Right. But, but didn’t quite get there didn’t quite get to the to the solution. And that that these issues were taken up in Christianity by the. Well first by the fathers of the church and and then later on in the West by the scholastics, although with the intermediary of St Augustine who is crucial to the development of Western thought. I believe that the that in the Orthodox Church or rather in the in the Eastern patristic tradition that these three that these three issues were addressed in a in a more satisfactory manner and in a manner of which which. Well I say transfigures the conversation. Whereas, in the West in scholasticism these issues were also taken up. And, you know, to some extent, I think there was some positive work that was done. But I think it was insufficient, and I think that it got derailed a little bit. So could you say the three again there’s rationalism. So rationalism, metaphysics, and theology, and intellectualism. Okay. Okay. So which one would you like to tackle first, because whichever. Sure. Okay, so, so rationalism. If you read modern orthodox theologians. One of the, one of the accusations that they will make against scholasticism or the Roman Catholic Church is, is that is that excessive rationalism. As compared to orthodoxy and patristic thought. The term. Yeah, I’m going to define it. And that is, and that is this. And that rationalism is explicitly connected with the rationalism of ancient Greek philosophy. Right. Okay. Okay. So, if you think about philosophy as a project. It’s, it is fundamentally a rationalist project in the sense that that it involves the application of human logic to the world that we find ourselves in in an attempt to sort it out and try to figure out what’s going on. I’m not saying it’s exclusively rationalistic by any means. Because, you know, I think, I think, actually in that connection to be fair, the, the work of Piaf Addo is tremendously, tremendously insightful. And, you know, really needs to be at the core of modern analysis of ancient Greek philosophy. I totally agree. I totally agree with that. So I’m not I’m not trying to downplay that part by any means. Okay. Okay, but nevertheless, the, the ancient Greek philosophy is a rationalist program. Yeah. You know, and you can see that very easily you read, read Plato or Aristotle, and then read the fathers of the church. The tone is completely different. What’s going on is different. It’s a different program. And, you know, so, okay. So there’s this idea, which we understand we try to understand things through human reason. Yes. And, and in fact, in Neoplatonism, there is a program by which we do that, specifically by the by learning how to think abstractly. By by learning to to abstract the the highest or highest values. We then understanding those abstractions to be the ideas, the forms. And then, and then well and then trying to participate in them. There’s now, now to be fair to Neoplatonism, and in particular to Plotinus, because I really think Plotinus drew this up much better than any of the other Neoplatonists. You know, there was a recognition that the highest point is beyond reason. Yes. There was the one. Yes. And that was stated explicitly. So, you know, and the binding to it is not a process of, of, of discourse of reason. It’s it’s it’s it’s all the, the, he tends to you use love more than any kind of Diannoia discursive reasoning for talking about that, that realization of that’s why I tend to use the word realization, rather than reasoning about the realization of the And it captures that sense of insight and all at once, etc. All right. But but there’s but there was problems that are there was first of all the problem is, well, if you’re, if your program, is that rationalism, what do you do when you get to the non rational. It’s a problem because your whole program has been has been rational. And, you know, later in the old blatant has tried to tried to sort that out, and they came up with, you know, with different ideas that were, you know, from our point of view, sometimes absurd, you know, like astrology, you know, or fury talks a lot about astrology as a means to ascend to the divine. Of course, we’ve got young glucose talking about therapy, which is, you know, practically indistinguishable from magic. You know, so, so, so the mechanism was was confused. And, you know, in, in a way, almost, almost self contradictory because, because there is, they didn’t have the internal resources to resolve the problem of what, how do you deal with the non rational when your program to reach the rational, the non rational is rational itself. And so when that was taken, that was taken up by scholasticism and scholasticism did resolve it in a certain certain way. But the way they resolved it was downwards. In other words, by downplaying the non rational aspect. So, you know, so that’s why we see in that in scholasticism, God is understood to be intelligible. In other words, this, the, the, and, and God is understood to be in essence, you know, the perfect absolutes absolute self existing essence. So, so, so in this sense, from the, from the other point of view, scholasticism actually is actually is worse than, than Neoplatonism. Well, because, because Neoplatonism was was striving towards this idea and had this idea that there was something non rational, absolutely, absolutely beyond. Would you, would you, would you put your, your, your camera’s gone again. Yeah, I’m sorry. I’m. I think it’s just your signal. You’re coming back. No, you know, you know what it was. I just, I think I have a bad wire and I just, I just bumped the wire. Could you give me two minutes? I’ll pause it. Right. So, and, and, and, you know, they. I don’t know how far you want me to get into the internal contradictions of what finances. Well, can I ask you one thing that. Yeah. So, I’m following this argument. What about, I mean, there’s arguments and they’re, they’re, they’re, I think they’re in terms of academic, you know, stature Gregory Shaw has, you know, I am blikas. And then he has other stuff where he says, there’s some pretty clear, like, continuities between notions of the ergy especially as it’s taken up into pro class and stuff you see in Dionysus, I believe Dionysus uses the word. But what you see, and I’m not claiming he simply imported the ergia, but that there’s a relationship between the ergia and liturgy in Dionysus. So, I guess I’m a little bit hesitant to say that the ergia is just indistinguishable from magic there’s a deep attempt to distinguish the ergia from sorcery. And there’s an attempt to understand, and as it goes on the ergia is becoming more and more like ritual. Oh, there’s a person can’t remember the title the book, it’s the ergia the invention of a ritual tradition. And I, I would have made an argument a little bit different towards the effect that Eastern Orthodoxy sees an important role for ritual in enabling the news to realize in a way that scholasticism doesn’t it sort of does philosophy here and ritual there that’s that’s that’s an oversimplification and I’m waving my hands to indicate that. Whereas I, I agree I agree with that 100% of that was, I was going to get to that I don’t know. Oh, go ahead there. Okay. That being said, I don’t have. I don’t have a very high opinion of therapy and I wouldn’t want to. I wouldn’t want to push the connection between therapy and literally. Okay. Anyways, that’s a kind of separate discussion that maybe we can put off some other time. Well, let me give you one one way to maybe we could agree. I’m not asking you to agree with the energy or I didn’t want, and I wasn’t identifying with liturgy I wasn’t saying that. But what I’m saying is, I mean, I want to say that that the energy wasn’t just like irrational magic. There wasn’t there to use your term there’s a groping towards the importance of ritual as something that properly. I want to say engages the news in a way in which discourse cannot. And that’s what I, that’s what I see in that tradition I see I’m very I’m doing a lot of work now on, you know, what’s called ritual knowing that there’s a kind of knowing that is only It’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s its own thing. And this has to do with embodiment enactment, etc, etc. And that’s, that’s, that’s what I’m trying to trying to suggest to you. So I didn’t I wasn’t, I’m not asking you to advocate with the energy. I’m not asking you to advocate with the energy. No, I’m not saying that. But I’m trying to say, Oh, you’re gone again. Um, so, again, I’m not trying to get you to a set to the urge or anything like that. I’m just trying to, just like you can see the groping and era towards the copy. Just like you can see that I’m the groping in neoplatonism of arrows to a copy. I see I see in the theoretic process, some attempt to understand the role of ritual. But is that enough of a connection point to get you get you back into the discussion is important in at least to the best of my understanding and you know, maybe I’m misunderstanding therapy, but it seems to me that the that the crucial difference is something like this. That that therapy is at least as explicated by young records is a is almost a means of obligating the gods to to do something. And it is the medium by which it is done is the is the correct performance of certain rituals. Yes, that correct that correct performance is key. And so these these two aspects, on one hand, the correct performance, you know, the correct translation of words and so forth. And on the other hand, the basic the virtual obligation of gods. This is this is why there seems to tend towards the idea of magic, even though they the theorists explicitly denied that they were doing magic. Yeah, it on a functional level, it’s it ends up being somewhat similar. Whereas liturgy liturgy or ritual in in Christianity or in the has neither of those two aspects. Liturgy is original fundamentally are forms of symbolism. There are symbols that we act out that represent divine things that by acting them out when we participate in symbols of divine things, it is a a form of connecting with that divine. Yes. In in a manner that’s not only intellectual, although or rather noetic, but but but even physical. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. And if you allow me to make this kind of divergent or stunt divergent another point we can think of religion in the following way. Obviously, not the only way to think of religion, but. You know, we if we if we want to look at it from bottom up, so to speak, rather than from the top down. We we see the world that we live in, we see the world that we that in which we exist and that there are things. Things. We have in order to make sense of the world, we have to categorize those things we have to organize those those things in our mind. That organization or that kind of categorization ends up being universals. They are abstractions. Of of a a central idea, which is drawn from a multitude of particular. So we go from the particular to the universal. We can then even abstract abstractions in order to come to a to to a higher abstraction or higher value. And then we take. In in religion, religious thought, we take those highest abstractions and we unite them. And we unite them, we understand them to be to be real in some sense of the word real. We understand that a connection to those highest values and virtues and ideas which we have abstracted from lower, more concrete things, we understand them to be. The most important things which which exist. And and then in order to access them again, what we do is we reproduce them in the physical world as symbols. Right. Right. Yes. Right. So so the symbol is is an expression of an abstraction. But is it but is an expression on on the physical on the concrete level. Right. Right. And and so within the same within the symbol is contained the whole world of that particular abstraction. And so it’s kind of like this is the example. It’s like a zip file. Yeah, no, no, I get it. It’s a good example. You know, and so what what that does is that allows us to it allows us to access those those highest values and those abstractions in a manner which is not just intellectual. I get it. Yeah. Yeah. And and what that means to access those highest abstractions, those highest values, that’s. You kind of have to understand that. And and what that means to access those highest abstractions, those highest values. That’s part of the value. And that’s it. You’re accessing them and it was garbled in a way that’s not just noetic but physical. Is that what you said? Right. I said so. So since symbols are ultimately end up being physical. I mean, take iconography architecture, music, poetry, ceremony, whatever you want. It’s all physical. Right. And so by in in that sense, what it does is it allows access to the highest ideas, not only to. Or intellectual. Truly inclined and who are able to think right. Right. But to ever general, because ever is a very important thing. But to ever general, because ever is a very important thing. Or intellectual. Truly. Find who are. Able to think right. Right. But. Because ever I know. There are. High realities. Yeah. Okay. We got. I don’t. I’m sorry for the. No, no, no. You’re not. You’re not track. It’s that the signals really breaking up, but I got the idea that the ritual, the symbol, and I’m not, I’m not really radically separating them. Because of the way it’s physically enacted and embodied. Right there. The ritual and the symbol makes available access connectedness to these higher realities. To people who are not necessarily coming at it in a, you know, in a highly intellectual way. So it broadens the access. It’s not elitist in a powerful way. If I can put it that way. I’m trying to make sure that I understood you because it was quite garbled. But was that the gist of the argument you were making? That’s the gist of the argument. And I think it’s a really important point. Yeah, I think so too. I think it’s very important. Okay. I’m going to suggest to you we stop fighting this that the signal is not cleaning up. We’re at this really interesting point, because I want to talk to you next time a lot about ritual and again, I see. And maybe you don’t like this but I see this is actually an extension of your transfiguration argument, something like the attempt to get at ritual the neoplatonism is being transfigured and improved and developed in this powerful way. And I think it’s an important way in which everything you’ve been talking about with ritual and symbolism, the symbol on the joining together, right is so relevant to everything we were talking about last time about synergy, interpenetration, and deep participation. So, I’m going to invite you come back and let’s talk about ritual and how you see it working within the Eastern Orthodox tradition and why that can be a precious resource for addressing the meeting crisis. How about that for our next conversation? Okay. Great topic. Unfortunately, we kind of missed some of the other, some of the original topics here but that’s okay, you know, all the conversations are good. Well, yeah, you know, I don’t want to, I, sorry, we don’t have to exclusively talk about that I want to still talk about. I see it as a way of really deepening the first point about rationalism. And also I think it overlaps with intellectualism. Very much though. Right. But I also point out to you I think you’re making an ontological claim for symbolism that is very different from to sort of nominalist claim that symbols are just things that point. Right, you are talking about symbols, having a different ontology they participate. That’s what I’m hearing you say. So I think rituals actually tie into these three topics very well. So we can do that and then we can return to the transfiguration in terms of rationalism, intellectualism and metaphysics. How about that? I would just leave as a final note, since we’re talking about ritual, and it’s tie in with some of these questions of rationalism and intellectualism. The very noticeable fact that the Orthodox Church plays a high value on ritual. Yeah, very much. And that’s definitely something I want to pick up on. Bishop, I wish we could continue but I think it’s for good practical reasons we stopped now. And then we pick it up again, and we’ll go on to part three and we’ll pick it up around these three big themes. And but we’ll start with ritual and then get back into the three big things themes from that. Okay, I want to, I want to thank you for being here. We were fighting against technology, which the my quote for that is technology is the God that limps. Right. It lets us down a lot. And so we have to bear with it, but we will definitely pick this up. I want to thank you again for this amazing conversation. And, and thank you so much, John, for having me on. It’s very much a privilege. And I thoroughly remember the logos my leaders. Yeah, me too. Me too. Take good care of Bishop.