https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=baQQQwPAcMY
Hi, John. How are you? I’m good. I’m good. How are you? I’m good. I’m good I’ve been watching you talking to Jordan Hall. I feel like i’ve been watching you for a long time already today I haven’t had a chance to respond mary, but thank you so much for what you said uh Uh, the one comment you made was extremely helpful Um, I’m sorry you mean about wondering why anyone would have an objection. Yeah. Yeah, so are you getting that? uh, no, but uh Uh, I was talking to paul today, by the way, we spoke very highly of both of you, especially you mary um And uh, I was saying well, I was concerned about the one analogy I drew And you know jordan had sort of spoke back and say john is trying to do this But it looks like looks like in general people are responding. Uh, you know, uh with charity But I nevertheless i’m grateful for you saying what you said, so I wanted to thank you for that Yeah, well, you know sticks and stones may break by bones, but analogies never hurt me That’s good that’s good Oh, all right cool. Um, so uh, yeah one of the things I thought we could talk about was to come back on the issue of uh, relativization on the ground in the ground of being and Uh, if we can see, uh any sort of personhood in there and um I’ve been thinking a lot about this in the past a few weeks, especially using erigina Thank you again john by the way for the their book recommendations. Those were very useful Yeah, and i’m very very interested in erigina’s thought as you know, uh jp. I really well, you know, I commented on it I really liked the video you did sort of trying to Uh integrate erigina’s ideas, uh was sort of my ideas about the you know, the bipolarity between emergence and emanation I wanted to say right now that that’s very very close to how I was interpreting erigina and why I was attracted to him And so I wanted to thank you for that. I thought what you did was very clear You’re already getting other people telling you that that video was a very very clear video and I thought it was very well done And mary, thank you for the link you sent me haven’t had a chance to look at it yet about the erigina talks, but oh yeah, right I will I will definitely do that Well that professor what um thinks that erigina should be up there with thomas equinas and and um augustin she’s very Yeah, lucky for promoting his thinking I would too. I would too and I mean erigina is going to figure in the after socrates video because I mean What you see is dialectic of being taken up right first of all, it’s written The division of nature is written as a dialogue, right? So it’s very much socratic like that. But then the dialectic is it’s sort of the the culmination of the neoplatonic vision It’s not only between people and within thought but it sort it helps us ultimately conform to The structure of being itself and so erigina is definitely going to be in the after socrates video series and so I mean Uh, thank you both because it’s very helpful to me Yeah, and my I also want to right away mention. Uh, you made a great point uh, I think when you talk to jonathan about erigina, especially that uh, one of your One of the reasons why you were reticent to associate erigina with classical theism was that he was Uh later persecuted as a as a heretic. Yeah, which is usually good evidence that Somebody’s running a foul of classical theism Yeah So so as I was researching, you know erigina in general I also tried to see a few reasons why you know, he was classified as a as a heretic and I mean because I don’t oh, ideally I would avoid try to I would avoid being an eretic myself So I tried to to to separate from this and you know, there are a few accusations which came up and as you raised Also with jonathan, it’s not clear exactly why erigina was persecuted as a yes Yeah, there’s sort of comments all over the place. Um, yeah. Yeah one thing Yeah, one thing which showed up was the accusation of the them theism But as I said in one of the videos, I think it’s something that I think it’s kind of a lazy accusation because original Never tries to reduce got to anything. So yeah. Yeah, I think that yeah I think that’s like when they accuse socrates of atheism and corrupting the youth Yeah, I think that I think that’s sort of a that was sort of a a stand-in for some, you know This is like paganism or something. So I I suspect that that’s not That that’s not the thing I do I don’t I do suspect that the accusations had some sincerity in them because he he was thought of so highly Before he presented the division of nature. So I what I mean is it’s like Again, the evidence is so under determined But it sounds like people were sort of shocked when he produced it because he had such a People had such a high opinion of going in so I don’t think they were out to get him initially that that so Uh, I I I don’t think that’s plausible either so there’s some aspect of his work that really really stepped on people’s toes And like and his fall was precipitous. He was he was basically, you know, the the court philosopher the court theologian And then like and then he disappears It’s such an extreme fall Yeah, so Yes Um the professor the professor that I was listening to um today said She made it sound like his He was actually condemned many centuries or several centuries later that it was It didn’t sound to me like she was saying it was during his lifetime. I think so as well after the scholastic Oh the official Yeah, yeah, the official declaration of him is harris. He comes later, but um, the idea is that Again my understanding and many people would it’s like this right? Um is that somehow goes back to something that happened in like in his in his lifetime. That was my understanding Uh, because like I said, he’s he disappears and he disappears under a sort of a cloud of suspicion Yeah, sort of my my strategy to Deal with this safely was to try to then bridge from erudite to saint maximus the confessor Because he’s a safe figure because he’s a saint and he’s also So a Friskyzm saint so he’s a saint in all traditions. So if I can make it there it’ll be safer at least That that would be fair to jonathan too jonathan peaujo because uh maximus is pretty very much his hero Yeah, and he’s still green with you when we talk to him. Yeah Yeah, well, I I really like that conversation. I mean it got a little heady uh, and so um, hopefully we can make some uh Some good analogies for people who are watching so that we don’t get too too too lost in sort of concept space um, yeah, I liked I liked the discussion about um Relevance realization and erigina and what that might mean and jonathan had this very extended notion of personhood Yeah, which I found actually I couldn’t quite make I was getting pieces of it, but I didn’t quite see how it worked Yeah, so anyways I think this was also get to one of the reasons why erigina was uh seen as at least suspiciously and ultimately Condemned as the erotic is there is a distinction which um It’s sort of uh, it sort of emerges in especially the christian east There’s a recent philosopher, uh named david russia was written about this is it’s the distinction between essence and energies Uh, especially in the eastern orthodox tradition and apparently you can trace it all the way back to saint paul in uh, In his writings. He is the first one to use the terms of energies only when talking about the actions or the manifestations of uh higher level beings like like god or demons and so on and it’s a distinction which You can see also apparently in in in saint maximus And this allows him to explain how So you can have a vision of personhood with uh sort of very deep manifestations and ultimately one of the the ways to sit maybe is in the in the west, uh There was a as you as you point out john a natural supernatural distinction which became clearer and clearer and then fully articulated with saint Thomas Aquinas whereas in in the east, uh instead of having a Very clean cut to world mythology. Uh, it was always more of a continuous cosmos uh where The the the distinction that’s between god’s essence and his energies is not like at one level You have essence and then at the other level you have energies. Uh, the energies sort of always recede it always uh depends on how On where you you stand on how you can look at it. So even anytime We can talk with something simpler. Maybe like when my essence and my energies like i’m a human and I can as a human person as a human hypothesis I can uh Deploy some I can manifest I can manifest the energies uh of a The human nature let’s say i’m typing on this keyboard. I’m doing something very human at this moment So my human hypothesis I have the power to manifest Uh the the human nature there Um and in this manifestation I can bring some some lower beings into participation there like my ends for instance, I can bring my ends into uh typing on the keyboard and an important point there is that uh when my ends participate in My energies in my my typing there, uh, they can participate more or less like like maybe I have a disease in my hand and they don’t fully respond to our typing but uh If my end or my ends are are fully healthy and they fully participate in uh in my typing and they if they they Be fully participate in my energies then my end is also more fully ahead You know, it’s a healthy end. It does what it’s supposed to do and so on. So you have a notion not only of I am a human Uh, I’m an institution of the human Nature I can manifest this in doing certain things and I can bring lower things in uh, such manifestations in my energies and with this distinction, uh, this allows Saint maximus to do things especially having to do with bodies Which ira ira jr doesn’t and some things which seem very suspicious from a christian point of view So for instance, ira jr doesn’t think that we add bodies before the fall And also on the other end of the spectrum, it’s not clear in ira jr’s system Why the incarnation was important? Why was it important that they said the logos became a body? And also it doesn’t talk much about how we can participate in this how we can participate in the the body of christ Whereas it’s all over the place if you read about feosus in the saint maximus That divinization takes place within the body of christ or as mary you’ve been talking, you know lately in your videos in a A community of logos it takes place within sort of really a body So this is those are all touch points which ira jr doesn’t uh sometimes when you read the profusion you can see it here and there where he mentions the incarnation and the Yeah, yeah, yeah the the fact that the word became flesh and so on but it’s not clear why it matters really or it doesn’t give the sort of precise arguments, which maximus is uh able to give and I think it will come down to this link between uh, and how in essence When it’s initiated into a person into a hypothesis can then manifest Uh itself at those different levels. Can I ask you a question? Yep Um, what is the difference between what you’re calling energies and what we would call works? That’s a good question, uh, what do we invite work especially what sort of examples would you have well, um Like just what you said about like typing on the computer. It’s like it’s you’re doing you’re doing work, right? And i’m isn’t there Isn’t there um Etymologically a connection between the word energy and the word work Uh, it’s one it’s not etymological. It’s definitional energy is the capacity to do work within physics Okay, I okay. That’s what I I thought I knew there was some connection. So would So I guess my my question is then what’s the difference between what you’re describing? When you talk about like typing on the computer or doing something that you know It’s like your essence becomes Manifested through a work or I don’t see the difference between that and the word energy I wonder why are we using the word? If energy is a capacity to do work, but you’re talking about the doing Then why are we using the word continuing to use the word energy instead of the word work? Good point one. Uh, the the important thing is that especially in the east they will uh, Identify In in a I guess in non-logical way the uh The hypothesis with the uh, the energies so in the case of god for instance, if you participate in god’s energies You do participate in god So but you don’t participate in god’s essence. Is that the idea? No, not in his essence We we humans never reach god’s essence We can participate to diverse degrees in his energies. So let’s say even the mere fact that we exist is Signifies that we’re being held in existence by the kind of being so we participate in energies to this extent But we can participate more fully. Let’s see like when I was talking about my hand no, uh my hand if it’s if it’s sick it’s not responding properly, it’s still Part of uh, it can still participate in what i’m doing But to a lesser degree than what it when it fully obeys when it fully, uh becomes part of part of me and But i’m i’m interested in the participation the other way jp. Yeah, maybe mary is too i’m interested not so much how your hand can participate in things i’m interested in Is the relationship is a relationship of participation between the Dynamics because that’s what you would say. Uh in your aerosol between the dynamics of your hand and your essence Like your hand is part of your identity such that if I if I cut your hand you say, oh you cut me Right. Um, you don’t say right and i’d be guilty of hurting you as a person if I damaged your hand Is that what’s being invoked here that you know that I mean It I mean they talk about the hand of god in the bible So what may we could even use that as a metaphor perhaps? I mean is you know, i’m trying to i’m trying to see what this does uh In terms of our participation in god that’s what i’m trying to get at so the idea is we could We can interact with god’s hand And god’s hand has a participatory identity with him, but god’s hand is not his essence Is it something like that? I’m trying to understand what’s going on. Yes. Yes, so we Yes I’m, not sure I see you the the point you just read about how You were you wanted to sit the other way around in the way how my end you you were telling me how the hand Your hand could participate in the world, but I was interested in how your hand participates in your essence I’m trying to get at i’m trying to get at yeah, i’m trying to get at the relation within god between his energy And his essence what’s that? What’s the nature of that? Relations because there’s there must be some metaphysical difference because I can Participate in god’s energy according to you, but I can’t participate in god’s essence So there the relation can’t be one of identity between god’s energy And his essence, but it can’t be one of this identity or then I can’t enter into a relationship with god That’s what i’m trying to that’s what i’m trying to yeah That’s a very deep question And I suspect that this will have something deep to do as well with how original reunites the four divisions of nature in uh, because ultimately all the divisions do all together there’s a sense in which let’s say the the the created uncreated The created uncreating is partly of of god itself than being in god It cannot exist outside of it or it will just cease existing So there has to be a relationship that’s hard to articulate And I think this is what they’re pointing out with the essence energy distinction uh, but so I mean it’s something like the I mean it’s it’s something like you know, uh, And Jonathan was talking about this, you know The neoplatonic idea that the hypostasis right it’s it’s not it’s not Um, it’s not essentially identical to that with it. That’s why it’s a relationship of participation, right? the intellect the the the the The realm of the forms the inner pen the eternal interpenetrating system of the forms in the platonic sense uh Participates the one it’s actually a transitive verb right it participates the one it proceeds and returns but it is not Identical uh to the one and it sounds like you’re that you’re trying you’re saying that you see maximus doing the same kind of thing Yeah But but I do think that also as jonathan said that in christianity like the most important thing is that the infinite is equaled with the manifestation of the infinite that you you really want to identify Yes God is energy. Okay. Okay. Okay. So okay. So okay now I see so that so you’re suggesting that the uh, the participation of god’s essence into his energies It does not have the diminuement the the diminishment In being that the neoplatonic process of emanation has is that is oh I see I see yes that that I would say that’s really I would say that that’s really key. Yeah Okay, that’s really key. So um, yeah, we’re so Um, and this is where I would think that we make the the great distinction between the created and the uncreated You know the god the uncreated and all of the creation right that um Okay, let me see how I can put this into words, so the the um The the things that are contingent the things that are created Can Participate to a greater or lesser extent in god’s energies by cooperation Okay, and this would especially be true of the intelligent creation which can choose to cooperate, right? and then but as but there it’s not as though It’s not as though god is sending forth Beings that um are less and less and less him down down Um I’m kind of losing the The way to express it And Um, maybe jp kind of understands what i’m saying. We’re not we’re not like everything that in a set There’s a sense in which everything that is created From the highest angel to the you know lowest You know slug to Every you know atom Is is in a way? Um Equal in being creation Um As contrasted to god who is uncreated, okay, so let me give you an example This is something I thought of years ago, but um, it’s like it’s just an illustration So many years ago there, I don’t know if it was national geographic scientific american or what magazine it was But they would have a page In there and what they would be doing is showing you something a great magnification Right, and then you would try to guess what the thing was and you were you could never guess really because it would be so Different from the thing that you saw if you looked at the thing Okay, so one time one time they had an image that it looked like the surface of the moon With all these craters and everything it looked just that You know like there were like there were um Cliffs that you could fall over and all of that And then you know you tried to guess what it was. Well, it turned out that it was the surface of an egg Okay, which went which seemed so smooth to you when you Hold it in your hand, right? Even though it might have slight texture. It doesn’t look anything like it It’s got craters and cliffs on it and I remember thinking When I saw that I remember thinking Down here in the realm of creation or down here on earth we see So many differences You know we like even between human beings and we’re always looking at you know Who’s at the top of the hierarchy and who’s in the middle and who’s at the bottom and we see all these differences? But maybe I remember having this thought maybe from god’s perspective We’re all Equal because um, I had to turn off my email I forgot to close it So anyway, um So does that does that make sense as an illustration of what i’m what i’m trying to say that the difference There’s just this absolute difference between The the uncreated between god the the ground of being And all of creation that there’s a way in which all of creation is actually just On that has the same status it’s not a it’s not a It’s not a diminishment even though I think I think there’s definitely I think there’s definitely a diminishment just having to do with the fall uh, that’s one thing that Let’s let’s let’s try to stay away from the fall For just a minute and just talk about it in terms of the creation for a minute Because we can always come back and talk about the fall you know so Sorry, mary, I want to make sure you’re done Yeah, i’m done So i’m trying to get this. I think i’m getting a glimmer, but i’m not i’m not i’m not it’s not clear Because i’m trying to and I mean this was a point that jonathan was also he was trying to You know emphasize that they’re right, there’s kind of uh That christianity sees goodness throughout Whereas neo-platinism sees a diminishment as things emanate Okay, and so uh So there’s that now one of the things that of course for me A deep inner so in neo-platinism you have the procession You have you you move from singularity not not which is not the same thing as a single It’s kind of like the singularity of the big bang, right? It’s not it’s not it’s that kind of right it it’s Right. It’s all intelligibility back to its ultimate unity, etc Right, and then it proceeds out but everything is also simultaneously returning which you know, right? But the the the big difference I think in erigina for me And why i’m so interested in and give me a second guys and i’ll try and connect those two points together So I don’t mean to trespass on your patience right is right For platinus, for example, there is the there’s the diminishment all the way down Right and there’s a sense in which the emergence isn’t really the return isn’t emergence in the sense. I would talk about it It doesn’t it’s just it’s a return think of the the language, right? Um, so for example if I go down in platinus I get at the bottom which is pure Right pure lack of form pure matter and for platinus. That’s pure evil Right, but what I see in erigina is no no, that’s for him Right. That’s the the way you’re explaining it to you. I think you agree with it. That’s the inexhaustible, right? And that’s from whichever an emergence is just as if you’ll allow me this word I don’t mean to trespass on your god’s space, but the emergence upward is just as sacred as the emanation down right because the emergence upward expresses the inexhaustible in a sense and then the Emanation down expresses the ultimate Unity and integrity of intelligibility and both of those are worthy of sacredness. Is that is yes. Yes Go on. Yeah, and that’s why I wanted to to mention the fall just because you when we Before we go into the fall, let me just But instead of the up Coming down and going back there’s another language we could use we could use origin and telos Right. Well telos is really the origin Right, right. So we could talk about beginning and end alpha and omega Yeah, I mean I think Yeah, I so i’m interested. Yeah, I mean well, I think they should I I think the vertical ontological And the horizontal historical actually should be sort of Triangulated because in arogena, they’re supposed to be triangulated into something that transcends both of them on in my understanding So I think using both is is is good But I think they they pick out different aspects. I don’t know if this is important at that point right now I guess what what i’m interested in is What mary said first and I also want to hold off before we get to the fall if that’s okay So i’m trying to understand mary because I can see I was trying to capture the smoothness of the egg is one way in which it’s sacred Uh, because the smoothness points towards that that the oneness of the intelligibility but the differences of the egg if I Is all those differences actually generate all of the capacity for For things to emerge for new things to happen and and so and that’s also worthy of being thought of as as sacred justice as much as As as the smoothness of the egg the dappled it’s like manly hoppins, right? The dappledness of things is just as much as a sacredness as the smoothness if I can use your metaphor Is that doing justice to what you were saying? Yes, all creation is good Yes But but but but i’m trying to get that there’s two different Dime I’m struggling with the language. Go ahead jp. I’m talking too much But I definitely agree with the two uh, you know the fact that there is emanation from god from the ground of intelligibility, uh, and emergence from the The ground of being and the two meet the inexhaustible and the ground Uh, what when they don’t meet they completely interpenetrate. Yeah. Yeah, yeah They completely interpenetrate. Yeah, and that’s every place where they meet then things exist and creation exists That’s right. And that’s the dialectic. That’s the dialectic in creation. Yeah. Yes, and this is why I This is where perspiration can come in as well because we can’t frustrate this Uh ourselves if we do not participate in being properly we can avoid the emergence from reaching what it should Um, yes, this is why I wanted to mention the fall and theosis also ultimately in especially That’s I think this could be one of the reasons why my end example was uh, was a Bit messy at the beginning because no i’m not perfectly identified with my manifestations and similarly, uh right now you can say that the the emergence and the emanation Uh are not in the proper relationship because we’re after the fall but the idea is that especially the human being especially in the original as the role of Working in this relationship between the ground of being and the ground of Intelligibility we have the the before the fall and then after theosis we have the role of Mediating between the two so there’s sort of a fracture in being Yeah, I get that and I think I mean and the point of the dialectic in the division of nature is to exemplify How we can come into conformity how we can come into greater conformity not in what we say but in what we In how we think and interact with each other so it’s more about our being and that is how we can come into a better alignment with sort of The flow of the dialectic of being I I I think I I think that’s deeply right So here’s what I wanted to say. I mean, and this is what was also going on with with jonathan. Um, Is for me so Be charitable to me guys. I’m trying Okay, so in in deep learning which is You know some of our best artificial intelligence and it looks like how the brain And this is and I make use of it in relevance realization and that’s where jonathan and I made it might have had a connecting point What you see is you see you see the system cycling you see the system cycling So what it does is it does compression and it tries to get what is invariant and in that sense eternally sort of one And then it flows out To all the variations Right, and then they are gathered back up again And that’s of course, you know the model of relevance realization the model of evolution and for me, right? I was thinking oh that’s kind of interesting Because that might be a potential way of seeing something deeply analogous But which is what you and i’ve been talking about jp and you and all three of us last time mary is that there’s something analogous You know, it’s an it’s an augustin or an augustinian idea that you know that sort of the not the content of our ideas but the very um structural functional flow of our mind Is something that reveals the structure the deeper structure of reality so You can see the flow of relevance realization as deeply conforming to eroginous dialectic of being that’s what I was that’s what I was that’s where I saw as a potential connection point between Jonathan and I is that is that fair to say that? Yep. Yeah, did you say mary? I want to hear from you. Well, I will I want to say that You know, I like all of this. Um stuff. I’ve loved everything you’ve done with the relevance realization Okay, so if you’re in your do you talk about so there’s something deeply analogous between our mind and the structures of reality sure deep structures of reality and And I would say And also the the structures of reality all the way up like all the way up and all the way down, right? so, um So like we may find that they’re like even like the formation of crystals or something like that is I think the the autopoiesis and relevance realization has a deep continuity with self-organization of the fire, etc. Yes Yeah, yeah, so why so? Now more like to jp’s points about well, let’s this goes down But also why wouldn’t it continue to go up? And so then I have to come back to the question that’s kind of like the point of um, The point of tension between us which has to do with why wouldn’t that be mined up there? and a person you know because it seems to me that we That we value mind Sure, we value mind over matter You know we that we value mind over matter because It’s the mind that to use paul van der klees. Where do you write colonize is the matter, right? So we and we value mind over matter. Give me an example an example like if someone If someone um Injures me. Let’s say someone um hits me and harms me in some way Okay, so there’s the physical reality of that thing happening, but my My um sense of that incident is going to vary greatly between whether that person Accidentally hurt me or had the intention to hurt me right So we’re on so the mind the mind the state of the mind We we value it over the over just the mat the material um Reality So I mean in some senses I understand you but um So what i’m trying to get at is if we value mind if we value mind over matter Okay, and if if we can’t go up above the human In value Then Then isn’t it the case that we have to look and go? well We’re at the top You know the human the humans are at the top because we’re the ones with the minds and we’re the only ones with the minds And therefore we’re at the top So, okay now I see what you mean, okay, so you want you the idea is moral valuation I mean because there’s other ways that this well, I because there’s other circumstances where we give priority to the physical over The mental like if I if i’m causing you hunger that’s considered a greater crime that I might just sort of Insulting you and giving you a painful mental state, right? um, so but I I want to put that aside because I I was misunderstood I think the way I’m understanding you is saying The thing that we think is most inherently valuable in all of creation are people is that is that a fair way of putting it? Well, or let’s say persons. Yeah with persons Okay, and so If and so if when you talk about things coming down like you it sounds like it’s something above us But how can it be above us if it’s not a person not a person in what way? Well, I mean it’s above us uh in terms, uh, well, I I want to go slowly here because there’s many ways in which that could be answered So i’ll i’ll say one and then maybe give it. I mean it’s it’s above us in that it It’s everything else is asymmetrically dependent on it right, um, so That means that if realness is actually what we is another thing that we intrinsically value which I think we do Then something being more real in that sense in that more of reality is dependent on it would make it more valuable than me Even though it does it’s not it’s not necessarily a person That’s what that’s what I wanted to say. I wanted to say but we value I think there’s things we do find intrinsically valuable other than Persons, I think we find things being real Uh, read the realness of things is inherently valuable to us, too I mean that’s I think that’s a great platonic insight that no matter what we no matter what fulfills our desires We have the meta desire that it’s real What fulfills our desires realness is is we value realness for its own sake, right? And so when you say that other things are dependent on this on this um One or this being or whatever i’m not sure what language you’re using for it When you say dependent dependent for a Dependent for continued existence dependent for or the origin of existence or oh, no Yeah, so I I would I mean it’s a ground as jp said it’s and let’s stay in in erigina Not just pure neo-platinism. It’s it is Simultaneously the ground of being and the ground of the intelligibility of being yeah Okay, so It’s it’s it’s the sort it everything is dependent Everything I say is going to be over speaking here, but everything is dependent for it in terms of it being be every being is dependent on it insofar as it’s a being and Every way in which a being is intelligible Um is also dependent on it So how does how does it so then it must know intelligibility Well The platinus for example argues that that’s a mistake because the ground of intelligibility can’t be an act of knowing because the act of knowing depends on the the Depends on the principle of intelligibility. For example Knowing is about a relationship between a subject and an object but the the ground of intelligibility is what ultimately Unites And makes possible the relationship between subjects and objects so it can’t itself be divided between subject and object So it can’t therefore be an act of knowing the ground of intelligibility Can’t be an act of knowing any more than the ground of being can be a particular being Yeah I think that’s why in the east they put it in the energies rather than in the essence itself and I think we can Go back to janet and said this even about just humans It’s not uh, let’s say the fact that you know, I am the instantiation of a human nature and you’re the instantiation of a human nature that makes us uh Conscious individually is the fact that we interact between two different human hypotheses It’s in the man our manifestations that there is consciousness that there is what we typically Talk out talk about special personhood And I think it will be the same thing in the case of if we if we talk about the the ground of being it’s In the east they can remain apathetic about what happens in the ground of being itself in in its essence and there’s a sense of which I mean, I want to keep talking to you guys because It’s great, but I don’t want to dismiss that I think there’s a sense in which we should ultimately all Recognize that there’s an aspect of this before which we should have a kind of referential silence I don’t want to dismiss that aside Yeah, let’s keep talking of course because I think we’re doing something useful here, but um I just wanted to put that in because I think that’s important to say yeah. Yeah, I agree I think I think that’s that’s a very wise thing to do and that’s why the All the all that they will really need for a classical theism at least in the east is that we can see we can use the the modern term of relevance realization in the manifestations of The the ground of being and we can remain Apathetic about what happens within itself about with let’s say the relationship between the ground of intelligibility and the ground of Of being and what happens between the relationship of them in themselves. I don’t know we won’t reach this point anyways So then it becomes more of a question of how is it that the ground of being manifests itself? Does it do it in a Way that looks like relationship in the way that we would associate with personhood or would it rather be something like emptiness? like the buddhist conferences Yeah, so I’d be happy with that and So The way in which I could talk about that that might upset you guys as I would say well Of course a non-theist would say that often we will enter into personal relationships and perhaps Entering into a personal relationship uh, it You know is is a valuable way of disclosing certain aspects of the one or the ground of being the ground of intelligibility I’m going to use the word one but i’m going to be using it in erigina’s sense Not just in platinus’s sense because we need we need a term of reference here for what it is i’m talking about And so the I think the more important issue then might be what you want to say I I think there’s a move you can make and maybe i’ll make it on your behalf and you’ll say aha But john we we sort of we’re talking earlier about how the manifestations have a kind of they Participate the one in some way. So there’s something If the personal relationship Participates the one then there’s something being disclosed About what the one is even though it’s not part of the essence of the one Is that the kind of move you’re trying to make is that yes? Yes. Yeah Okay, and then the only remaining move that we may or may not make and it’s very absurd It’s sort of in uh, like a medieval dispute in the east in like the fourth century But the the the move is that you know, the same sort of manifestations which let’s say we see between us and the one Could well hold within the one between uh, let’s say the ground of being and the ground of intelligibility This may be this is a door that could be open as well that That there could be a deep continuity between the manifestations we observe between humans and the Between humans and the one and also within the one himself But we can I think most I think lots of christians would be happy to remain apathetic about about this part Okay, so let me give you an example of what i’m talking about. Um, and So I I sort of spoke on your behalf and you said you thought it was charitable Um, so let me like like let’s take like vedanta As at least something that’s officially supposed to be a non-theistic because brahman is is is is is impersonal but uh vedanta says that the individual gods, right are the Personal manifestation so that we can enter into personal relationships, but brahman is itself Right impersonal. So that’s what I mean about you can use all the language Which we’re agreeing on here and then still ultimately ultimately say because that’s what vedanta does but ultimately non-theism That that’s the that was the point i’m trying to make well, I I think I think this accords well with I don’t know if you got to hear my last video Or paul vanderkley’s video where he talked about the meta divine realm, you know that many polytheistic Um systems also posited a meta divine realm and the meta divine realm could be personal or could be impersonal or could be um a a um a fight or a battle or Uh contest between the other the fates. Yeah, the fates are work Yeah, um so you know We know that when we are talking like if we go back to classical theism Even when we’re talking about When we’re talking say about the trinity when we’re talking about god You know god as god and god the three persons in god That we we know we’re talking analogously Analogously to perp to person and yet there’s a relationship so, um So we’re not so the idea that you know that god transcends the category of person is already part of It’s already part of christianity so, um So I don’t have I don’t have and I don’t have such a problem with that um You know I think there’s There’s tremendous. Okay. I say it. There’s a lot of um There’s a lot of utility definitely in person in a personal god in many many ways I mean psychologically for humans there there certainly is plus if that if there is a real revelation You know which we believe there is that there is a revelation that god gave us To enter into this personal relationship with him so, um, so we’re not you know We can grant many things but at the end of the day we’re we’re sticking with a god who is is personal um, sure, but that’s not to slight or to say that That’s not to make okay except that’s not to make light of or not respect um the experiences and the traditions of those who say This god is not personal because even for those who have a non-person or that the ground of being or our intelligibility is not personal because Usually in almost all cases as far as I know there are personal entities that that come between the human person and that ground of being such that like as you said that a relationship can can um form and so I don’t I guess I You know we we talked before about the ambiguity, you know, they Taking that as as as seriously as as possible or as you know as factually as possible um you know when we talk about how things are how the The structures of reality Go all the way down and through I think this applies even to our um Like to how we relate to persons in the sense that if when we’re in doubt as to whether there’s a person there When we have an ambiguous situation in life We go for the person for example. I use this example in one of my videos You know if someone is going to knock down a building and they’re in doubt as to whether there’s a person there They don’t knock the building though You know or um try to think I’d use it. Oh a hunter a hunter out in the woods If he sees a movement behind a tree and he’s not sure if it’s a deer or a person He doesn’t just shoot because it doesn’t matter if it’s a person So like we we opt for when we have an ambiguous situation in this In life we opt for person Okay, I think that’s very good mary, um, and so I want to respond to that in depth, uh, um Maybe it will actually be a response that closes some distance Um, first of all, I want to I just want to bring out that I there was two parts to my argument It was the ambiguity right and then there’s also that there’s no logical decidability for similarity There’s no there’s no algorithm that can say this is this is objectively more x is objectively more similar than y um because Well, if you remember the argument any any two objects are actually indefinitely similar To each other or indefinitely dissimilar to each other logically, so there’s no algorithmic. There’s no logical There’s no way to give a deductive evidence or proof for decision Scissor for similarity. So I just want to point out that that’s both of those so that means That actually puts a lot of weight on the pragmatic aspect of your argument Do you see what i’m trying to say is you can’t sort of say wow Here’s the rule and if you follow it that will show that this is the correct analogy Which is not what you’re doing. I just want to make it really clear though where where where where where we’re where we’re playing, right? okay, so the and then the the the the the issue about the pragmatism is again What that it’s so pragmatism is ultimately how things are relevant to us and You know, i’m sort of on record as saying I don’t think there’s anything that’s ultimately always Always has priority and relevance. And so I do think we we do make those kind of decisions again When we have moral concern, but when we have epistemic concerns, we sometimes go the opposite way We say for example, we got we made tremendous progress in disease when we stopped personalizing diseases and realize Realized that they were created by these impersonal forces bacteria, etc Things like that when we stopped thinking of them as demonic possession, etc We made we made tremendous progress and we alleviated a lot of suffering and so You can say well in that situation, you know It was actually the better going impersonal actually had great moral benefit, too And so the right thing to do there was to actually do what we did Which was to go impersonal and thereby we were able to alleviate so much more suffering than when we treated the unknown thing As if it was a person so again Yeah, it’s see what i’m i’m not i’m not trying to one up you mary. I’m just trying to say Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, i’m trying to say you know I I I think there’s context in which you’re right There’s context in which we say there might be you know, there might be a person there and that’s what I should do But there’s other contexts in which it turns out The sort of taking the risk that it’s an impersonal thing has actually had huge moral benefit for us That’s why I tried to give that example. Okay. Well, what about in the air arena of gratitude and thanksgiving? Okay, this is another one of your good arguments I hope you take that i’m responding to you with some good arguments as indication that I think you’re giving good arguments and uh, and Um, I I hope that’s understood. I want everybody who’s hearing me to hear that So I I like I I thought I thought a lot about that because And you mentioned I think very correctly that you know, the expression of gratitude is part of what is part of my daily practice for example um And and I was I was trying to think about so the idea is First of all, I want to make sure I understand you so this is not a challenge or criticism This is an open question. Is the is the idea that uh, Part part of the phenomenology that needs personhood is that people experience deep gratitude and it’s not to another human person and it’s not to a collective a bunch of few but there’s there’s a sense of gratitude. It’s real and There needs to be Uh, like what word do I want to use someone There needs to be some yeah, there needs to be a someone to whom the gratitude is directed And so what I think my question is what’s the nature of there needs to be a someone is it the idea that if there Isn’t someone there my gratitude will sort of dissipate and be frustrated. I’m trying to get the phenomenology that you’re pointing to Well what i’m I come back to the if there’s a person Versus if there’s not a person. So for example if which would be Which would be the better option? to Um to say thank you to a person who is not there Or to fail to thank a person who is there Well, um, so let me I I get your point we would generally say It would be better to fail when there’s no person there than fail when there is a person there I get that. Um, and I want to acknowledge that but Here Spinoza famously said in the ethics that the wise man desires nothing less than to have god love him in return Because if he is desiring for god to love him in return that he’s not actually loving god for being god He’s not actually loving god as an ex as a pure expression of the goodness of being and so Well, how what are you loving or are you are you not loving a who No for well the spinoza’s god is much more I I think you could make a really strong case that because it’s god or nature right for for Spinoza means the things that we have separated in terms of god and creator and god and nature are actually ultimately just one thing god or nature And that is what he means by god And so he’s not loving a who he’s he thinks He’s arguing that If we Actually care about the truth as truth Then we should love the ground of being without desiring that it love us in return Because only the love for it without wanting the love in in return is actually the love of truth Because if it’s anything else i’m not loving it because it’s true I’m loving it because of what it’s doing for me That was sort of the idea. Oh, you know in christianity. We do say we do say That we love god for who he is that it’s that it’s a It’s a much um More uh less developed form of spirituality to be loving god because of what he does for me that okay But that what that god is deserving of of love for who he is that’s Yeah, so that that okay, so let’s at least say there’s something close between what your uh christianity and what spinoza is saying um well, and then As long as what I am Loving is good like the truth is good Then can I not love it and be grateful for it without it being a person well, I i mean there’s a difference between grateful for something and grateful to someone for the thing Yeah, but why do we okay? But I I acknowledge there’s a difference But our question is which one of those is the one that is happening in for example in my phenomenology, right? I I experience deep gratitude Um for the goodness of the ground of being for the ways we’ve been talking about today Um and for the ground of intelligibility and I don’t desire for the because i’m a deep devotee of spinoza I don’t desire that it loved me in return. I in fact for me that would be a diminishment of both What my love is directed to and of my love? Well, I I understand that I mean I I understand where you’re coming from um, thank you for saying that But um, okay So where do these things you’re grateful for come from that? I mean we get into questions about you know basically cosmological arguments about That so the part of the the reason for the ground of being is also the origin of being in christian thought so and One of the reasons we say that there has to be and this is apart from any other distinctions about God like trinity or anything like that is that? There had there there was a willful decision to bring things other than god into being That that makes sense what i’m saying that god That there was there was just god And now there’s other things other than god that have a real existence that are really That really have an existence not that they’re not held in existence by god, but that they’re given by god a certain kind of freedom to be um to be actual To make things happen in the universe Um to be causes in their own right right secondary causes But that the first cause Is a is a decision so your Seems to me in your ontology you’re lacking an explanation for As was it libnets who said why there is something instead of nothing? Okay. Well, there’s two questions here. Uh, and one is Uh sort of How did it all get started question? I’d like to put that aside because I think that’s just going to get us into arguments about you know A scientific origin story and and a non-scientific origin story that I don’t know if we if we could make much progress on that um the other one that I i’m trying to get Because I think this maybe this is one of the reasons why erigina was sought thought to be a heretic I mean because erigina thinks that That god’s creation ultimately doesn’t leave god That god’s creation is ultimately um Expression of and away and and continuous with god’s self-knowledge and that sounds to me also Like what you guys were saying earlier about the manifestations of god are still god um so I I i i i i’m not quite seeing what you want me to give up because i’m not sure Uh, I’m not sure you you i’m not sure that you gave it up earlier anyway, like you like you I mean Well, I guess it’s when go ahead here. Yeah in the way in the way in which uh, the the ground of uh, Possibility the ground of being will constrain himself into making things exist Then the the the question will be in this manifestation Is there uh How much room I guess maybe is there left to change to chance how much real message is there guiding it towards something? Because I I could see if we just leave it there I could see this leaving. Uh, I could see this going either way personally where uh, if we just uh Take those two ideas that well, we know that there’s a ground that there’s real possibility in the world There is real emergence of things and we also know that there there is real constraints on Uh those possibilities and that the world exists between those two If all we have is this it’s sort of an empirical question to see where will all this meeting of emergence and emanation? Lead where will this end maybe this meeting is Conscious, maybe it’s not if if that’s all we have I think it could go go both ways Yeah, I I think I mean I I want to acknowledge that because I think we’re all I mean we’re all coming at this and one of the reasons I like talking with you guys We’re all coming at this with humility and we’re all acknowledging. We don’t have arguments that foreclose or anything like that So yeah, I I sort of I see that too what you just said Um, and I and I I do like the idea um, that’s why I switched from similarity to conformity that I I can put aside my worry about similarity if there is a sense in which Right my mind can conform to reality not in the content of mine But in like I say in the very structural functional flow of my mind It is conforming to the structural functional flow of reality I I and and that to me Um, it is a powerful thing. I think that’s very close to theosis by the way, you know this point Yeah, I think so too. I think that’s I think that’s what theosis is as well Um, I just I and I don’t want I I think all of this is good uh What you just said? Uh, I I guess I I even though i’ve been responding to marian challenging her. I I also respect her concerns. I I I they’re I I keep asking this question and i’m not trying to be badgering Even after we do this I do I I have a sense That you guys I sound like some sort of alien species You guys have a sense that Calls you beyond where if you’ll allow me to personalize this where I am And and you know and and and like I say there’s something and I use this term very broadly There’s a phenom there’s something in your phenomenology and mary’s happy to use that term. I know Maybe I can tell you a story. Um, okay recently, you know, I spent a few months in france earlier this fall And I had a chance to go to a special mass that was organized for the all the students in paris And there were like three four thousand of us maybe Um, and this was in a fairly big church and old church all made of of stone Uh beautiful building so we were so many people we couldn’t even really sit down We could either sit right on the floor or stand up because we’re so packed and there were lots of uh, Also clergy there. There was like a few bishops several priests. There were also servers and so on I know there was a great choir Uh, lots of uh incense and all that stuff. So it was a very involved. Uh, Lots of people very intricately involved and I remember there was a precise moment in uh, the in the mass where I I looked up we’re singing some some ends. I don’t remember which ones and there’s the very Sort of living continuity in what we sing there. There are some songs we we sing or like hundreds or I don’t know maybe even More more than a thousand years old some some of our some are in greek some are in latin So there’s like deep historical depth to them, right? Yeah that people have been saying from the beginnings of christianity And we also have some more modern songs But the precise moment where I remember was we were singing one of those and you know in unison with lots of people around me I have people I looked around me All combining our voices into one while the the priests and the bishops are also Upwards and we’re all looking at them towards the the altar Uh, and it was so incensing and I sort of looked up and I saw this this old You know rock ceiling with a thick layer of incense that had raised up and this felt really maybe Otherworldly would be putting it maybe too too strong because uh it more felt like I was as much maybe in in the middle ages as I was in uh in 2019 I it really did feel like When I was talking especially earlier about saint maximus and his view of theosis occurring within the body of christ where this uh, you know you This movement of between the ground of intelligibility and the ground of being which was sort of broken by the fall And then the idea is that when christ became man he went all the way down to to the bottom of things Yeah to to the ground of this point. Yeah. Yeah, and then when You and then you raised everything back up in a way that is deeply continuous between Between heaven and earth between the ground of being and the ground of possibility because it is both the son of man Having emerged from from the earth and also the the son of god having come all the way Yes, yeah, yeah, I get that. Yeah, that’s very powerful. Yep and then uh He raised us up by allowing us to enter into communion with them So he he became very close to 12 people who made them his friends Uh, and then when after after he died those uh people Those those apostles founded churches. That’s what they made loving connections with people under them and this established a hierarchy uh, ultimately I would say between heaven and earth and also a a strong movement in history in which I can take part and by entering into this I I get a a strong sense of theosis where I I participate in something that is much larger than me that is not just about me and that makes me Automatically want to love more everyone around me. Sure and and And I think that’s deeply important but I’ve had those experiences and many people have had those experiences in which Again, they feel deep self-transcendence. They feel the affordance of wisdom connection communion They feel connected to something much greater themselves and many of those people Don’t come out of that with having said having a sense of an encountering a being or encountering god or anything like that and they can have I mean I I had an experience very similar when I went to delphi and I stood in front of the own fellows And people have been there for millennia And you have the part of it goes down into the ravine into the earth and part of it reaches up into the sky And you get the sense of the continuity and you know that socrates had come, you know The people have come here and asked about socrates and all of that is there and you get this I’ve had I think um, you know even a sense of being called beyond myself very deeply deeply connected to the emanation and the emergence That’s why I wanted is why I talk about this stuff because i’ve had these these experiences. Um so again Yeah, this maybe your ontology really is rich enough to you know encompass the old phenomenology and that’s That’s another possibility because ultimately I think this is one point Especially when we talk about the personalism of the ground of being I suspect maybe now that I may be even a bit closer to you than to mary because Maybe I think I was too rash in saying that lots of christians would be happy with the deep continuity of relevance realization Uh Up until the the ground of being I think in the east that’s true most christians would be happy to believe it that will god is uh Is both person and beyond person? um, even maybe the idea that what the father in himself Uh is only doing relevantization with the son and not really maybe within himself. I don’t know maybe you could Play play with this. Well, well, I mean he is called the logos and that would work that would go very nicely Uh with your what you just said, um, maybe this is better left to uh to uh particular theologians. I mean I want to ask you a question john. Can I please please mary? I just want to acknowledge that I do feel like we got a little closer All three of us in an important way and I don’t mean just affectionately a book that’s happening as well but I just met uh, like I think you know, uh jp you often use the uh, The metaphor of bridge building. I think the chasm was uh less chasmist that the bridge has to go across if I could put it that way Yeah Please mary. Okay. Um, I really like all the stuff that you said about the way that Human beings are prone to that the machinery of relevance realization can be hijacked That they’re prone to these perennial problems and how the Religious traditions have honed the um, psycho technologies to help them to deal with that Yes, right Did I say all that correctly? Yes, you said that very well. You you often interpret me very well So here here’s my question. Here’s a question though that I have is that when I hear you talk about the purpose of religion as being to um for for wisdom for as a home for Wisdom and agape because I do that at the end too. Okay I think what? what I think about that as a as a christian is that that’s not the Primary purpose of our religion and I can’t really speak that deeply about other religions, but i’m sure this is true for Judaism, you know orthodox judaism and for Christianity is that for us the primary purpose of the religion is worship and the wisdom the whatever the the wisdom, um effects on the human personal are That we would see them as a byproduct of the worship so that you know classically worship is seen as The the virtue of justice has applied to the relationship with the divine Does that mean treating the divine appropriately? Is that what you mean appropriately in the according according You know if you want to put it in the crude way giving god what he deserves Sure, you know and and then we carry that further in the christian tradition and say We can’t give god what he deserves So we have to so jesus comes in to give himself to us so that we can give him in sat in a sacrificial way Through the eucharist back to the father so that then we are giving god what he really deserves and so um, but that that The virtue of justice in the soul or righteousness the but the same word is the word is the same translated sometimes righteousness and sometimes justice is that by Developing that righteousness in the soul through doing the worship That is what then Um That is what then I would say The the other wisdom the other wisdom things follow from that the other orderings of the soul follow from Follow from that um So but the primary purpose of our religion is not I’m saying this because you talk about the religion. That’s not a religion And the wisdom and getting the wisdom and the meaning and the meaning but that That that’s I I just wanted to say that that we don’t see that as the prime. We don’t see getting wisdom as the primary Purpose of our religion. Does that make sense? I’m not i’m not like Um, i’m not trying to um to say that anything that you’ve said about it is not correct No, no, I get that add this extra element that we that it’s it’s uh It seems like a bit of a truncated view of our religion to say well the the purpose is to be To gain wisdom sad Sure, and I get that i’m going to ask you about it. I mean, um I mean I I could say some biblical stuff like, you know wisdom is the principal thing from the book of proverbs. So Yeah So, right. Um and I’m not saying that wisdom is not high up. There is a priority just that it’s not It’s not the pride. It’s not the top priority of yeah, I want to be fair to you So let’s do the I mean so if you’ll allow me a way of talking about this because um, I need a way of translating this into You know the phenomenology because I don’t want it just to be a circle of doctrine. I’m not saying you’re saying that So I’m what i’m doing. I’m trying to translate it. Okay, right Part of what you might be saying is part of my phenomenology is I feel called to worship and that call being called to worship um, I take to be The primary thing of my religion and then well, I wouldn’t even just say call but that I I I’ve sensed you know, we talked about creatureliness as part of the numinous the sense of the That as a creature in relation to creator I am I am obligated to worship that to not worship is to not Be fully a creature But that sounds to me like the ultimate Standard is again the fullness of your being that That you can’t come into a fullness of being unless you’re into the right relationship with god so for example If I I mean this is tricky so um You say you are i’m trying to get About I was trying to convey that with a sense of being called in the sense that this is the right thing for me to do Right that it’s appropriate and right that I should Treat the What’s ultimate? I mean maybe paul telix language that I should only I have to treat the ultimate with ultimate concern and anything less than ultimate Concern is not treating it as ultimate. I’m trying to use language that I can sort of make work. That’s not specific to christian doctrines, um so It is it something like that? um because because I get that I get so You’ve heard me talk about the the difficulty with idolatry is we tend to we treat something that’s not ultimate As if it’s ultimate and then that radically disconnects us From reality and that that’s too that’s a fundamental loss of meaning because remember I don’t mean meaning as semantic meaning I mean connectedness to what’s most real and so it sounds to me like what you’re saying. I’m sorry Is that well what worship means is I want I want the I want I want to I want to realize the most relevant connection To what’s ultimate and part of that means means that I should always be treating it as if it’s ultimate Um, is that is that right? Well, yes, I should be treating I should be treating god as as ultimate I should be treating him in that way um but so Other religions do that. I mean right so and other I mean, so for example, uh, you know Buddhism Buddhist said, you know everything that I do is for the ultimate concern of nirvana, right if like Everything is in the service of this and it’s not in the service of him, right? It’s that only in the relationship to nirvana will human beings achieve enlightenment Which is the buddhist way of trying to say the best possible life they could achieve and and to use your order of causation, right? um The wisdom is ultimately in the service of enlightenment wisdom is ultimately in the service of realizing, uh nirvana So that seems to me structurally the case in stepping at least deeply structurally analogous in other religions Is that is that? I’m not familiar enough with other i’m sorry. I don’t mean I don’t mean to put That’s that’s fine. No, no problem. Um that I have many I have many um holes in my education But I just want to say that if you ask, you know, what is the What is christianity? You know and see there are some christians who would say if you ask them what is christianity about they’ll say well, it’s about getting saved But that’s a that’s a rather truncated view of christianity it really is about you know That giving god what what is do him and then like I said, we know we can’t because of our fallenness Give god what? Is justly do him the praise And the worship that is justly do him so he has made that possible for him now That’s one part of it, but that’s like that’s the most important part and I would say that shows in At least in the catholic and orthodox churches in that the divine liturgy or the mass is the eucharist is As we catholics say that the orthodox would agree the source and summit of our faith It’s that is a that is the sacrifice provided to us to give back to god by christ by which all the by which all the other things come the wisdom the agape the everything Okay, that yeah, that’s good. So I guess the so the difference maybe is that in the way in which we can participate in the ground of being um, it’s maybe it’s closer to the the body or closer to to to matter in within christianity where it’s not uh, Let’s see. We the way we confirm with the relevance with the cosmic relevance realization is not just an effort on our part to uh, let’s say do uh Made it form. Yeah, it’s not just an effort on our part. We also think that god reaches down that he became That the manifestations of the ground of being sort of didn’t uh, don’t just uh, sort of do the bare minimum Maybe of sustaining the world into existence so that things can can emerge and so on but uh, that uh, And this is this would get probably to the point of miracles, which we sort of alluded a bit last time we talked but that Uh, and this would tie in with the phenomenology where in the phenomenology of christianity we maybe we we we give a greater Part of we acknowledge more that maybe the effort that being does for us that the ground of being does towards us You think that’s fair? Is that fair to me or fair to mary who are you asking to everyone basically? I mean, I think I feel like you shift the ground away from mary a bit I think very I think very was saying something like um independent of whatever it might have done for us the ultimate um is deserving of being treated as ultimate and then But that’s how I put it and then I heard mary saying yeah john, but something more There there’s i’m trying to put my is it something like a sense of service? i’m trying to get what what’s Uh, because not all not all religions are worship religions, right? So the buddhists don’t worship nirvana, but they think it’s ultimate it should be treated ultimately Uh, right, but that’s why i’m saying that’s why i’m saying that it’s a i’m i’m saying that that we have a disjunction Between Okay, I I hear because when I hear you talking about religion And like I say what you’re saying about religion being these um, you know Containers for the set of psycho technologies by which we gain wisdom Which I think is all is all true I leaves out something in christianity. I believe also in judaism, although I don’t know That much about where judaism how judaism sees itself at the now versus how? The ancient jews saw themselves. It’s also we living leaving something out of Islam in the sense of submission to god because that’s what islam means Right. So what i’m what i’m saying is that in christian it’s leaving out in christianity the concept of worship as the worship is the Is what you know, what is the church for it’s for worship? now You know beyond that, of course, there’s many other things there is the wisdom there is the agape There is the community there is the there is that by their fruits. You shall know them too, right? Right? There’s all all that But but what it’s for Is worship that’s why when christ establishes the church he does it at that eucharistic sacrifice with his disciples. It’s the it’s the core thing I guess maybe maybe this is part of it then. Um, and so I want to try to very lightly and I have to go soon guys, but um, so You want to like i’m totally I mean, I think it’s a neoplatonic idea. It’s in platinus. We right we We have to treat the ultimate ultimately and like I said, that’s clearly in other religions and then There’s something you there’s something more you want to add here about It’s not just relating to what’s ultimate appropriately. It’s there’s a sense that god needs to be given Things is that is that what you’re saying? Uh because that’s sort of futile to me, uh that Because I don’t think god needs anything that that would make that that would that would undermine everything we’ve been talking about how everything is Right. So god doesn’t need that show me that god sort of the The father the yeah, the son gives something to the father with us that we can participate in what god gives Himself in this sense. Is that sort of what you’re pointing at mary? well, uh Remember when we were talking that I know we we did this and also when I was talking to karen talking about the the um You know a lot of times we when we talk as christians we talk about jesus loving us, you know that You know how much christ loved us that he sacrificed himself for us and all but the that the primary love of christ was the father That it’s his love for the father is the is what? um Is what was most in his you know, his top priority, you know Even over and above his his love for us that it was out of obedience to his father out of love for his father so That it’s the love between the father and the son that is Really what creates everything because it’s the the creation is for the son. It’s to whether the son would have something to To Give to the father so it’s what creation is for the father and the son Is a is a way that the father and the son express their love for one another and then draw us into that Draw us into that love that they have for one another and we’ve been speaking christian easier, but we can translate it in terms of being in the ground of intelligibility Gifting themselves to one another through us But then but then we’re back to what we were talking about before And I think we might have lost something in the circle because i’ve already said that I think and I think part of what I was arguing for when I was arguing for uh wisdom and religio is To to to fall deeply in love with being for its own sake I mean, that’s what that’s why I invoke spinoza. And how would that and then how would that? um So, okay, so I would say as a christian So, let’s see if we can do the translation back and forth. So I would say as a christian That to fall to fall in love with god Is then to want to give to god the praise That god deserves But god knows that I cannot do that And so god provides for me the means to do that Okay, that’s the sacrifice of christ There’s many other things accomplished by that and you know that in christian theology But i’m just sticking with that that one. I’m not trying to say that you’re making an exclusive claim. I get Totally take that totally for granted. Okay, so um Okay, how did what did you say just before? Falling so my question that would be okay, so you have fallen in love with being Okay, so How with the ground of being how do you express You know, this is i’m not you know, this is not like an argument it’s just like a you know back and forth How do you express Your love for the ground of being how would you say that works in your? Well, it works So if It depends what you mean. I mean it would be analogous to You come upon the grand canyon And you realize there’s something above and beyond you and you say ah You express ah you express right reverence, um and Or like when i’m listening to a i’m using i’m only using this as an analogy because we’re trying to talk here, um So i’m using aesthetic analogies i’m listening to perhaps, you know the seventh symphony by bethoven And I feel tremendous. I it causes me to sense a depth of thing a depth of things and I I I I love that depth. I just feel the love of that depth and I I appreciate in both the senses of value and understand and grow because appreciate means all of those and I appreciate it very very profoundly um and That’s what I do Okay, so I I kind of get it so because to you the ground of being is not personal then then Just merely having the personal experience that you’re having of of appreciating of um feeling connected to it that way that But but Then we get back to if you if you know the ground of being as personal You can understand then there would be a different There would be some phenomenologically different responses to a person versus it the non-personal I get I get that I get I get that I I totally acknowledge and understand I think That there that you want to say In worship i’m doing something other than what you’re doing john But what i’m trying to get from the other way, but that’s after you’ve concluded that the ground is personal Which to me is to get the cart before the horse. I want to know what it is And maybe this is where you have to ultimately point towards revelation or something I want to know what it is in the phenomenology that then first that calls you to attribute the person The personhood I don’t want to say personality because that’s the wrong word Um such that that worship makes sense to you, right? We we like my question is my question isn’t what my sorry I just want to finish my point married and just in a sentence, right? My question isn’t what follows from you? Treating it as a person. My question was what leads you to Treat it as a person Okay, so I would say presence I would say presence Presence you get it. So you get a sense of the of a presence of a person Yes And then I I don’t Okay And so that’s what that and not because in fairness to me I wasn’t around a lot of people who claimed that and tried to get me to like they they brought me up to try and experience that And feel that um If that’s what it comes down to then I have nothing I have nothing to say to you Like and I don’t mean in the in the reticent i’m pulling away I still want to be in relationship and communicate with you. It’s just I don’t and I don’t know what I don’t know what to say there Yeah, so because I you know there is a there is the revelation there is the you know, the ontological arguments about you know the creation being a decision of a Of a person there is all of that but then there is the sense of presence, which I think jp was kind of Hinting at himself himself. So there is all there there is all you know, there is all of that um, that’s why I say that when I when i’m hearing you talk about what religion is for I feel a little bit like you’re not it’s not totally grasping What we’re experiencing? within Our religious experience. However, that’s not to say that I would in any way impugn the Endeavor to bring as much wisdom to people and as much meaning to people as possible but that um But that I think you know christians are still going to be there We’re still going to be around and we’re still Saying person there’s a person here. We want you to get to know we’ll still be saying that to people and many of those people Will get to know that person they will have that experience of presence and it will be transformational for them in ways that you would approve of you know You know, uh, yeah I I don’t disagree with that. I I guess my I guess One thing to say back is I I was not trying to speak what about what christianity was um Because I think it’s fair for me to say that there are things that are bona fide religions actual religions world religions In which that sense of the presence of a person is not felt or Valorized within the religion and so I was trying to speak as to what I think because i’m ultimately in the series I mean i’m trying to be a scientist. I’m trying to find what’s what are the universal principles of this phenomenon? That doesn’t mean that any that that’s not to dismiss everything that we’ve been talking to or the point The decision point that we came to I tried to hear I think there’s a way in which Um, I mean christians should keep doing what you’re doing Uh, but I wanted to understand what I why why for me If i’m trying to talk about religions and not christianity that can’t be a defining feature Performing right right. Yeah. I yeah, I I I understand that but um, I just wanted to I just wanted to make the point that That’s kind of a do you think i’ve ever disrespected christianity? No, no, no No, not at all. Um Although um, I do think maybe in this conversation that I saw with you today that jordan hall was a little bit dismissal of dismissive of the value of vows Yeah But um, but that might be a net I need to pick with him sometimes He’s such a great character I thought when I read the title of your video with him. I thought I thought where you had the two Numbers the roman numeral, you know, I thought it was just an ll I thought Then I realized oh no, it’s a roman numeral I thought he’s making his name smaller and smaller all the time He’s such a great he’s such a great character and I was listening, um to the conversation I was outside and I was listening and when you were saying to him how much you liked what he did And you were both laughing. I was just laughing very long with you He is becoming a really uh an important friend for me an important colleague I think he’s a valuable partner in the project that um That you’re that you’re attempting um and i’d like to ask some more questions when we talk again about how you see certain practicalities of In a societal way How you would deal with certain practicalities of your Sure And other people have been asking me that i’ve done a whole bunch of interviews around the sort of societal aspects and Some of that will be available and maybe you get a chance to listen to some of it. I don’t want to Be presumptuous and then we could circle back around to it because i’m very happy to talk with you two again I should go guys. Um, I sort of was supposed to stop at 8 45 But I I didn’t want to stop because I felt that like mary and I were triangulating to sort of a really crucial Um, and so I will acknowledge I guess maybe formally and explicitly here that that is the piece of the phenomenology that uh, At least with reference to christianity or maybe the abrahamic religions is fair That is not is not part of my experience and not for lack of people trying to give it to me either So I don’t know what that means, but yes now I see what it is I think You have in your experience and how you have it in your experience And why you place the value you do upon it. So I think you have answered my question in that way mary. Thank you Well, thank you john it was great Yeah, thanks to you both it’s always a pleasure Okay, guys, um, I was wondering if um this time In addition to it being on your two your channels both of you you could send me it and I could also upload it to my channel Yeah, yeah, I can send it to the both of you. Um, probably sometime tomorrow morning. That’d be fantastic I’m at a conference speaking at a conference tomorrow. Um, so that that’ll be fun for me So we will i’m sure we will all talk again. I enjoyed this thoroughly and thank you very much. I appreciate everybody’s I appreciate everybody’s Um, you know affection and respect and charity and entering into good faith discussion. I deeply appreciate it And i’m thankful for it. Yeah, and thank you both for your work as well Thank you. Bye. Good night