https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=c2KjK5s44Ow
Poor to this computer. All right. The Orwellian voice spoke. So yes, or William is officially watching this. So really now. Yeah, that is. It is very dominant. So I’ve been, I wanted to share with you and explore with you genuine dialogues about and I’ve been exploring these ideas with Jordan, Jordan Hall, and also with Dan Chiappi in response to. Schindler’s astonishing book, Plato’s critique of impure reason, and then tying that back back into phenomenology, especially Husserl, a little bit of Marleau-Ponty. And then trying to. And so I’m going to throw out some terms and then try and unpack how I’m seeing them coming together. Yeah. So, and what I want to do is try to disclose a deep relationship between platonic, I DOS and deal logos. And so I DOS is usually translated as a form. Um, it’s more like the look of a thing, or as we might say today, the aspect. Uh, but I want to try and explore that a little more. But of course the I DOS became the basis for idea, which then also became our notion of thought. And so, uh, there’s something right shared there that I want to try and pack. So here’s what I want to do. I want to talk about a process. Inspired by Husserl, but I think also, and I think Husserl saw the reason why he kept using all these platonic terms is he saw what he was doing in very much platonic terms. Um, and I think that was prescient because as we’re moving to this, uh, post propositional, the idea that Plato’s thought was that it was the crux of platonic dialogue and dialectic and deal logos is non propositional. The phenomenological is coming back to the four, um, as central for understanding Plato. Okay. So here’s how I want to try to do it. And instead of constantly naming, this is from Husserl and this is from Plato. This is from all up on the, I’m just going to unfold my thinking. And if you want to pick that out and say, where did that come from? So I’ve sort of tried to give credit as to the, the people who are informing my thought. Yep. So the idea, no pun intended, no pun intended there, right. Informing your thought. Ah, yeah. That’s very good. Yes. So I want to start with, uh, you know, this idea, obviously from Husserl and Maula Ponte about the idea that we never will use vision, but it stands for all the perception we never see the thing. And the idea is, um, all we see as a particular look or aspect, like here’s one, here’s another, here’s another, here’s another, and nevertheless, um, I get a sense of my phone that is not disclosed in any look it has any aspect, but somehow is a unity running through them. Does that, and so there’s that, there’s that sense. Now, if we take, right. If we take it as a, as a fact that things have a combinatorial explosive nature to them, right. There’s a, a moreness that is combinatorial, uh, explosive. There is a suchness that is specific, uh, uh, beyond any possible, like beyond any categorization. It is what is unique, uh, to that thing. Um, then we are led to this idea. We’re led to the idea of multi aspectuality that, so instead of thinking of this as possessing sort of a finite, you know, accountable number of aspects, it actually has, uh, you know, a combinatorial explosive. It has an inexhaustible source of aspectuality. Yeah. And then there is something running through that inexhaustible multi aspectuality, this trans aspectual unity. Right. Yeah. Which, which is the source of why all these aspects that are not logically identical to each other belong together. There is something in all of the aspects. And here’s the, here’s Plato’s idea. That which unifies all the aspects cannot itself be another aspect. There is something trans aspectual that runs through the multi aspectuality. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So that is what I think Plato meant by IDOS. It’s, it’s that which is behind all the looks, which itself is not another look, but that we get, right? When we are coming into an awareness or a knowledge of the thing. Is that okay so far? Good. Good. Yes. Okay. Now the thing about what you can do, of course, is, is you can move beyond the perceptual. I can use in the, I can go into the imaginal. I can think of non perceptual. I can’t, I can’t perceive them right now, but I can think of non perceptual situations, not currently perceptual. It was what I should say, not currently perceptual situation. I can imagineally expand like what an aspect of this that might be real, revealed if there was actually magic in this universe, what might be right? Yeah. Yeah. Aspect revealed of this, right. Or, or, you know, all these different, you know, the internet collapses and then what does, what, what, how does this thing change for me? So you can imagineally extend the multi-aspectuality, which means you also imagineally extend the trans aspectual idols. Right. Okay. Okay. Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. Now, once I begin the imaginal into possibility spaces, I can then move into the conceptual extension the way with various concepts and abstract concepts. Right. I can open this up, right? So I can disclose it’s, you know, in concept sort of between imaginal and concept, it’s subatomic structure or the way it could be influenced by, you know, you know, relativistic factors, right. And so all of these things are now the fact that the iron within this came from a supernova billions of years ago, I can, oh, I, so now I can open up. It’s aspectuality and get right. And also now further extend the trans aspectual idols. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Now what I can do is now take all of those perceptual, imaginal, conceptual, and further extend them by entering into the logos with other people. Cause they, right now we have a meta. So my trans aspectuality extended as far as it can yours, Chris’s Jordan’s. And now we’re doing this meta trans aspectuality that is right. We’re sort of opening up even more into more dimensions, the multi aspectuality more and more drawing out the IDOS more and more and more. Right. I call that, I call that process. I dedicated, I does deduction because he dutchian it, you know, this is from Spearman when he talked about the basic ability to sort of grasp a pattern of intelligibility, right? So induction is, it, induction is the common mother of induction, deduction and abduction. Oh, okay. Gotcha. Okay. Gotcha. It means it’s related to education to draw out, right? Yeah. Disclose. Yeah. What I’m doing is I’m drawing out, right? So simultaneously there’s the inexhaustible multi aspectuality now blowing up into multi dimensionality. Yeah. And then that, and then there is also the, right? The drawing out the adduction of the trans aspectual, right? I’d ask the non logical identity that somehow persists through them. Yeah. And then to bring in Harmon’s notion of how we know something by deeply kind of knowing ourselves from object oriented ontology. So you bring, you can go back to Kant, Kant’s idea that in order to perceive the unity of this, there has to be a unity of me, of the I, not called it the I think there has to be a unity between all the, all the I view is. So the self, but notice that self is not a logical identity, right? It’s all it’s, it’s, it’s like a narrative identity. So it’s this transformative identity. So simultaneous to this, right? Trans aspectual adduction of the Eidos, there is also this trans aspectual adduction of the self. And when those two are dynamically coupled, that is the meaning of platonic conformity of knowing by being. Interesting. So it’s not in any identity of properties between me and it’s the, it’s the, the, the idetic adduction of my selfing and the idetic adduction of the Eidos are conformed together, are coupled, are tracking, are reciprocally opening each other up. Right. Right. And say the last part in that, that all coming together in dialogos. Is platonic, that platonic sense of knowledge is conformity. Yes. Right. Okay. Which is very different than, and I don’t know if this is a fair reading of Aristotle. Let’s say it’s very different from the standard reading of Aristotle’s conformity theory, where it’s just a structural functional organization, right? Which is right in one sense, but it’s not, this is not just a space that what I’m pointing to is not a spatial, it’s not just, sorry. Yeah. It’s not, it doesn’t include, it’s not just a temporal spatial, right. Structural functional organization. It’s the structural functional organization that runs through all the possible aspects, all the possible aspectualizations, right. Of the thing that, so right. It’s not just a spatial structural functional organization. It’s an ontological. Right. And I’m coming into deep conformity with that. Yeah. So it’s like, it’s, it’s this, it’s on one level that it is the spatial, right. And then it goes, and then you can come away from that and imagine it, right. And then it’s the imaginal, right. And then you can, then you can be in possibility space, right. The conceptual and in some cases, so the, the process of knowing, understanding, aspecting the not like the non-logical thing going all the way through it, that brings it all together yet is beyond it. Plays itself out in multiple, in multiple dimensions and that there’s a similarity through all of those. Yes. Right. And then D’Alogo’s when we come together, it’s just that on speed, that on speed. No, and it, well, and there’s all that there you’re also with the, with the notion of not platonic conformity, knowledge is conformity you’re, you’re also speaking that in some sense, it’s over against the notion of, you know, was it Descartes just to give this, give this some more perspective Descartes basically like took knowledge or, or solidified it in a sense of, of where before Descartes, I know you talk about it like this before Descartes to know was to be, was to come into conformity in some sense with, with what is known. So like to come in conformity with reality is, is the process of knowing reality. Yeah. After Descartes, all you needed was a method and then you can kind of know what that would have changed. Right. All you need is a method that gives you clear and distinct ideas, which are representations of the thing that somehow capture its mathematical and essential properties, it’s a fundamental difference. So the clearness and distinctness, right. Brings with them a sense of completeness, of finality. And of course that’s what that’s the epitome of Descartes notion, central epistemic notion of certainty. Certainty is I have it, I have it. I really genuinely have it. I’m certain there’s no, there’s nothing missing there. Right. That idea. Yeah. Whereas the platonic conformity idea is right. It is one of ongoing trajectory of trans framing. You’re constantly transforming where you’re both ref, you’re like that, that, right. You’re both reframing the thing and being reframed in your framing, right. So the trans framing, there’s transformation in your framing and there’s transformation of what it’s framed going like that. And that’s an ongoing thing. And the sense of that always giving birth, right. Right. To, to beyond itself. That’s different. So that’s a kind of trust as opposed like the sense of being, you know, swept up in a trajectory, which is very different, right. Think of the difference. That’s a trust kind of sense rather than a certainty kind of sense, a complete, a completion of grasping. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So for Plato, right, you ultimately, and I mean, this comes out in Nicholas of Cusa and of John, John, John, John Scott, I said, Hey Regina. Yeah. You never, right. You never lose Socratic ignorance. All you get is further and further learned ignorance. You’re doing this induction education process and you’re not, you’re not blind because you know that you’re on the course, you know what to care about. You know how to follow. Right. Yeah. But you don’t, but you can’t come to a place where, so people say, Oh, well, they said that about God that you can’t, but, but if you read, you read Regina and you read Cusa and who was I reading today with Dinesis, they all say, you can’t do that about even an object. You can’t get to the, like the final essence of any object because for them, that’s where the thing coincides with, with God, with ultimate reality. Right. Yeah. Right. Right. And so the idea again is to replace grasping with a living right relationship, very much like faithfulness rather than certainty. Yeah. So, um, this is, this is the model. And so the thing about Dialogos is like it takes it, like I said, it’s on speed, but Dialogos allows you to trigger and activate those beings to whom we most need to extend trust, which are other people, right. Right. Right. And for, for whom we are most readily capable of falling in love. And so this is again, the platonic theme of, you know, trust, love, right. Right. And so the, the very, in some sense, the very trust, what I’m hearing you say is the trust isn’t, isn’t a propositional standing back, right. And assessing the past yet. I would imagine the experience of all previous this going on all the time in some senses embodied in a sense of, of a faith that if I, if I, if I, if I move towards this in a particular way, right. It’s going to blossom beyond myself. Right. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. And that, so trust in the, in going back to the etymology in the step in the sense of trough. So to be betrothed to something, right. To be a truth to someone. Right. Yeah. And, and another connection in that is scariest note, but idea about beauty and how it prepares us for truth and justice. Um, that when you see the beautiful tree, all of the previous tree experiences are now gathered together. You’re getting that multi aspectuality and then you realize, but you, but you also realize, but I didn’t realize trees could be like this. So there’s the opening up. Yeah. Right. So there’s the reactivation by re-expansing, recognizing, right. That right. The multi aspectuality and the tree-ness is somehow now has to be, you have to do this sensibility transcendence on the tree and yourself. You know, it’s still a tree, but it’s beyond what I thought trees could be. And that means I can perceive things that I couldn’t, and that’s the experience of beauty, right. And so that’s why the beauty is round wound up, bound up within woven within. So the beauty are these things coming to both simultaneously coming together. Yes. And going beyond right at the same time. It’s a coming together and going beyond itself. When you get, when you get this, when you get that simultaneity, like that stereoscopic vision of the multi-dimensional multi aspectuality of this and the trans aspectual logos that holds it all together, right. So that it, so the explosion doesn’t fragment. The explosion is beautiful. Right. Um, very much. Yes. So that that’s what I’m thinking about right now. And you can see how I’m bringing together. Yes. What’s her role in moral Ponte and Plato, right. And the work we’re doing on the logos to try and get a deeper understanding of the relationship between. I wanted to move beyond the relationship between these two things. Cause I wanted to move beyond the sterile notion of the platonic theory of the forms and the practice of dialectic. Yeah. And, and sort of, there’s a lot of talk about these things that is stultifying and also fine. And I wanted to break out of that and re-engage them, not, not just individually, but also like in relationship to each other so they could come alive. Right. So you wanted to do, do the thing that you’re just talking about with that. Yeah, exactly. Right. Because I wanted to get at what was going on, what we saw going on and we see going on in the platonic dialogues, when we ask people to do dialectic and to deal logos about a virtue, right? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. They’re tracking the IDOS. They’re tracing out the IDOS, but they don’t come to a definition. Right. Or an Aristotelian essence. Yes. They come to a sense of, I can see it is beyond myself, but somehow I am the thing I’m seeing that’s beyond myself. Yes. They feel close to it. They feel close to it. They feel wedded to honesty or to courage. Yeah. The way they worked before. Right. So, so that’s the thing, you know, I’m wondering, I kept getting this sense of, as you were talking, I kept getting this sense of, you know, the eye that’s, that comes out of those dialogues in some sense. It’s formed and comes out of those dialogues. You very much. Right. But that’s, that’s the key of participatory knowing. Yeah. The transformative knowing of yourself and the transformative knowing of what, of the object of knowledge are bound together. They’re inseparably mutually affording and interpenetrating and inter-defining each other. That’s the core of participatory knowing. You’re knowing thyself and knowing the other are bound together, are wedded together. Right. Cause I’ve always wondered about that sense of what’s, what’s strange is like, in some sense, those experience are so forming of oneself, yet the experiences themselves are precisely moments where oneself is, is, is nowhere to be found in some, in some way. Right. So there’s this quality of, it’s funny, I keep getting this image, Brianne and I got, got caught on a, in a kind of a binge last night on, on TV watching, tornadoes and tornado chasers. I keep, I keep seeing it all around, right. And it’s going away and there’s this ideal place as a tornado chaser where you have to be in it with just the right. You can’t be too close. Otherwise you’ll get killed. You can’t be too far away because you’ll miss it. You can’t be on this side of it because you won’t see it. But if you’re at this perfect place, it all comes together, right. But it can go away in any second, you know, this sense of that sense of this is what we’re always kind of doing in dialogue. In some sense is feeling into this kind of way that we’re paired up with each other, that’s something happening in between where. Okay. So I got more on that because I’ve, I just published a paper with Gary Hoba-Hedison. He’s a former student of mine and not a collaborator of mine. Um, I probably mispronounced his name. I’m sorry, Gary. Um, and anyways, um, uh, we got a paper published where it’s coming out of phenomenology and cognitive science on relevance, realization of personality, and then we were talking about how to extend this into attachment theory, and I was talking to him about the idea, like in Bowlby sense, psychological attachment and how it’s so predictive of people then, and what you were just talking about with the tornado was getting an optimal grip on the tornado to use more of a haunted. Yeah. Right. But in deal logos, right. We can reenact attachment because we’re getting reciprocal optimal gripping going on. That’s what it is when my optimal grip on you is affording your optimal grip on me, which is a four, right. And it affords mine site resonance and it affords me in dwelling you and internalizing you and you in dwelling me and internalizing me, that’s what’s happening when attachment is opening up and that’s why it’s so informative of how, of a person’s entire, not just their thinking, right. Attachment goes into the very, like the very structures of your sense of self and your being in the world and your ability to be with others and be in relationship with others, right. It’s this profound. And then, and then I was thinking again about back when we saw it, how do we how the world, the difference between tracking the tracking the tornado and tracking the coyote is the coyote is not a tornado, right. The right, right. The coyote, right. Can be evading you and seeking things out and right. Oh, yeah. Right. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, right. But when I doubt the world, perhaps because the like, Dinesis has this model, right. But he’s trying to talk about participatory knowing and he talks about, we’re like clay and God is the seal that rolls out on the clay, right. It makes an impression. Yeah. Right. And he’s doing participatory knowing there because all of the, all of the images are aspects of the seal, but of course, none of them is the seal. Yeah. Right. And we, right. Right. Right. And this says, right. But so it fits perfectly with what we’re talking about, but he talks about that the clay has to be the right way. Right. Yeah. And think about this in that model. He says, you know, the clay, the clay is too soft or it’s too hard or it’s too watery or it’s not stable. So you got to get this receptivity, right. We have to get this receptivity so that the seal and the clay can optimally grip each other, right. It’s a reciprocal gripping. So we talk about, you know, that we fall in love with the logos in the logos. Yeah. But I, there’s a psychological dimension I’m trying to point to here, but I think we are activating and potentially reshaping people’s attachment system. That’s why they get this profound sense of intimacy, because what we’re getting is receptible, reciprocal, optimal gripping on each other, right. And this, and then that lifts up off. Like we said, it’s, it’s taken up from between people to between all of the people and reality reality is because when people describe the phenomenology of it, it’s not just that they are sort of reaching into reality and getting a deeper and deeper grip, optimal grip. Yeah. Right. But they also feel like they’re being grasped by, by the process. Right. There it is. Yeah, it is. Well, of course now, now I’m not, now I’m not only thinking of tornadoes, but I’m also thinking about having this infant, right. Exactly. Which the whole thing is I’ve been talking about this. I, in fact, you got on, you said, how you doing? I’m like, well, I’m just being, I’m in the process of coming in conformity with shitting and sleeping and crying and right. And then there’s these moments of, of, of where all of his, all it’s this place where, okay, all of his needs are met, right. Mom’s calm. He’s calm. Right. Like, and then we’re all together and he goes, boop. Yeah. Yeah. And then there’s this kind of mind melding that goes on. You can’t not look at. And so, but what’s interesting about this is that it’s like 23 hours. And the first other first 23 hours of the day are just this back and forth trying to get it right. Okay. What’s he crying about? All right. Is it’s okay. And he’ll let you know by not crying, but then it’ll start again. And then, you know, in some sense you’re learning about him and he’s finding out, I guess, is, is, is neurology is finding out that it has all its needs met. Thus it’s tied with our responsiveness. Right. And that there’s moments where that’s it’s not just him being calm, but it’s the I’ve noticed this, it’s the whole thing coming together, right. Um, it’s calm. And then there’s this other thing. It just, it just doesn’t, it’s not just, we all go to sleep at least in that moment, but we’re awake and we go, he just looks and then you can’t not look. Yeah. And notice you’re being grabbed and notice what’s happening in those moments. Those are attachment moments, right? Those are attachment formations. Yeah. You’re not just mind melding your mind, deducing your, your, your, your, you’re taking all this potential and you’re drawing out a mind, right? And he’s trying your other see attachment. That’s the attachment relation when we can tap that system because it’s a mind making person making system, when we trigger it in via logos, we give people access to the fundamental machinery by which they can make a mind and make a person and therefore engage in profound transformation. Yes. Yes. Yes. Oh, interesting. This is really interesting. Okay. So we’re talking about this is a, this is a kind of a, the, the idos, saying it jumping everywhere. No, it being nowhere in particular. And then it hovering in between things, but, but this, yes, this back at, yes, this back and forth. So then even, you know, in this dialogue, this back and forth, right. This back and forth and this catching on some level I’ve noticed that, you know, it’s coming to mind is, is, is that, is that sense in which usually I’ve noticed this with an insight is similar. It’s similar to the, the way that when you hear your own name in a crowd of people, like all of a sudden, everything stops as if you’ve been listening for it the whole time, right. And you’re like, Oh, who called me? Right. Even the faintest sound of your own name, it’s as if there’s an ear listening for it. Right. At least that’s the experience of it. Yep. And then getting this sense of like, there’s something like that, that idos or that, that thing that’s noticing the patterns, right. In between things of this back and forth, as if it’s tracking it the whole time. But at a certain moment, it sees the figure, right. And it there’s, there’s a, yeah, there’s, um, there’s a cultivated receptivity. The Neoplaton has talked about this a lot. They talked about the goal of a lot of their theoretical ritual practices was not to come to any propositional theory, but to create a proper state of receptivity to proper state of receptivity in right relationship that will afford fundamental transformation. It’s a receptivity within right relationship that affords this kind of thing we’re talking about, but it goes further because in Plato, there, there isn’t a single idos. Yeah. Every idos interpenetrates. Right. Yeah. The each idos is also doing this with all the other idoses. Nicholas of Cusa does this wonderful thing in the vision of God. He sends, he actually sent the people he sent the, uh, the treatise to. He also wrote dialogues, by the way. So did Eregina, right. At the, so at the beginning, in the end, you’ve got these, these great dialogues. But anyways, Eregina wrote dialogues. I didn’t know that. The division of nature is one big dialogue between the student and the teacher. And it looks at initially like the teacher’s always going to be the disclosure of truth. But as you go along, it goes back and forth. Okay. Got you. Oh, interesting. Oh, interesting. So Cusa said, um, the people he was sending the vision of God to, he sent them a picture that was the popular at the time. Cause perspective had just been invented. By the way, there’s a really great book on Cusa called the analogical turn. I forget who the author is and how Cusa is right on the cusp. Nicholas Cusa, he’s the, he’s the neoplatonic, um, theologian philosopher from the Renaissance, right? Right. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Gotcha. In the hundreds. Yeah. Right. And so he’s just after, you know, perspective has been discovered. He, he, he’s really pivotal because I can’t remember his name and I apologize for that, but the analogical turns me. Talks about how Cusa represents an alternative pathway that we could have taken rather than the pathway that came out of, uh, the discovery of perspective. Perspective was another psycho technology, right? It permeates our cognition. We think perspectively now, right? And we think that’s natural. We even talk about first person, third person perspectives, but of course, you know, the advent of perspective, right? Perspective of painting. And then that, how that helps, how that gets enmeshed with nominalism. Cusa goes another way anyways, to go back to the point. So this is a really pivotal figure. So he sent this picture and the picture is a, like of a, it’s a portrait, but it has this feature and they were, they were popular at the time. So no matter where you are, it looks like the picture is looking at you. Oh, interesting. Oh, right. Interesting. Yeah. And then what you can do is he says, no, I want you to do that. And then what I want you to do is both of you to move, like have more than one of you. And so, right. Each one of you will say, the picture’s looking at me, but you can hear the other person, think of dialogue. You can hear the other person saying, Oh, but it’s looking at me. I, right. And then what you’re supposed to get is the sense of the vision of God, which isn’t your vision of God. It’s that God is this, is this trans perspectival seeing. That enters in completely into intimacy with each, but is also, also right in relationship to all. Oh, what a trip. What a trip. He gives this picture and I’m working through the vision of God. I’m doing Lexi. And then you work your way through any, and then he, what he does is he imaginably unfolds this. So notice what he does. He starts perceptually and then he moves to imagine and know how he makes, notice how he makes use of the contrast between sight and hearing to get us beyond a particular sense modality. And then he opens it up, imagineally, and then he opens it up conceptually. And then you start to get right. The whole thing, right. Is right. The dialogue between him and his brethren. Okay. So take that image. Okay. Okay. That’s what each IDOS is doing. Yeah. Each IDOS is right away in which you could think of each IDOS as a way in which I am being seen, but also has as I could see and how each one is also right intimate with me, but there’s an all, so there’s an IDOS of the IDOS. Does that make sense? Yes. Running through, there’s a trans aspectuality, right? There’s an IDOS of all the IDOS. Right. Yeah. That’s God. And for Plato, that’s realness, intelligibility. Yeah. Goodness. Yeah. Yes. So do you see you, when you get into dialogue, theologos, you’re prepared to, you’re coming into a dinette, a state of mind that is dynamically receptive to be in real right relationship to conform to the dialogue within the IDOS, all the different IDOS so that you can track out the IDOS of the IDOS. Wow. Think about how we do that. When we ask them, you know, current you did courage, you did wonder, you did love, but what is virtue itself? It gives that lift. Yeah. How all the virtues interpenetrate and mutually define, depend on each other. And then they’re lifted up. Right. Right. And then there’s that, and I’m getting that sense of just, you know, what’s kind of struck me is I think it’s because we were talking about a kusa. Well, this is, isn’t this, isn’t this with the, the, when Christ comes back, right. In some sense that, that you can imagine that’s like getting the, the God’s eye view. That’s the great promise. That’s the great promise. So in Paul’s, him to agape, right. I want to, now I show you the most excellent way he ends it with, we will know as we are known now we see as in a mirror darkly, but we will know as we are known, right. And there’s that faith. Yes. Right. There’s that faith. God, the whole thing is just gets this sense of, of it out frames all of my captivating it, it pops, it pops out, but like when it pops out, there’s a realization of what I was just trying to grasp about of it being beyond ourselves. But the understanding of that, beyond this is itself up here right now. I’m understanding it. This kind of, yeah, this. Yes. But, but, and so, but, and this is one of the things that’s in the platonic tradition, but the Christianity made well, and this hit me, I think I mentioned this before, but I keep coming back to this because it was profound, right. It’s, I think it’s in one of his letters. Spinoza says God does not have any abstract ideas. Of course he doesn’t because he’s right. He goes to the very essence essential core of everything. He is the most intimate. Yeah. So what we have to remember, you rise out of the cave, right. You go up in a, but right. If you can’t take it back down into intimate, right. Conflicts written interact, right. Yeah. Somehow. Right. And this is what is so promising about the logos. Yeah. Because simultaneously it feels like this, the abstractions, but it also feels like intimacy, deep intimacy. So you don’t get, you don’t get the normal opposition between intimacy and abstraction, you get them somehow synoptically integrated, stereoscopically seen through like the vision of God. Right. Right. Right. I was so interesting. Anyways, that’s, uh, that’s sort of, that’s sort of the, the gestalt of total ride. Wow. Well, you know, it, it cut it to, to, to kind of then, I think, I think that what’s, what’s lingering for me about this is this is, is something in, in, in revisiting Ponte lately, um, his notion of reversibility. Yes. Right. And in particularly, and it really has to do with, I didn’t realize how much Ponte had to do with imagination. Right. Yeah. So, so, so Dan and I are, Dan Tiapi and I are going to be like, Dan and I’ve been published, we published like three papers, well, two and the third is probably going to be published. Have you, have you had any, have you had him on any videos, Dan? You know, he doesn’t really want to do that. I think that’s okay. Okay. Gotcha. So I haven’t met him then. No, you haven’t met him, but, uh, we’re reading the preface and some chunks of the phenomenology perception, because we’re going to read Marleau Ponte’s visible than the invisible, right? Okay. How much the imaginal, uh, is this the bridge between them. Yeah. Yeah. And, and in this way, that’s interesting. I was reading and I was like, I don’t know if, if Ponte read Corbin. I mean, I would imagine he must have, but he doesn’t, I don’t know if he mentions him. Um, but he’s got the very same sense of, of not, not imagination, but the imaginal enactment, particularly in perception. And this is to see if I can kind of, I can get it. That the, that the imaginal is something like, something like has to do with this connection between, it’s like the invisible lining of the visible in perception. Right. It’s this place where, where something like reversibility happens. And it, and it has to do with this, this, this sense in which how, like, I was thinking about this, like, so, so from, from, from, from, from the world’s perspective, my seeing right. Is the sun, right. Right. Yeah. But from the eyes perspective, the world is like the sun. Yeah. Right. And there’s it, but yet this, this, this understanding of the world, right. In some sense is given by this sun. And there’s something that goes on that reverses, like we’re constantly. Reversing it’s this sense of reversibility, right. Um, and. Yeah. And Ponte picks up on this reversibility and he’s like, there’s no, he couldn’t find any, any language that really, I think that accounted for that. And so the word he started to come up with was this notion of ontological flesh. Yeah. And, and I don’t know if I quite understand it, but you can really get this sense of like, when you put your hands together and you go, okay, now feel. Feel how, which hand is touching which hand now, now you can feel your, you know, your right hand touching your left hand, right. See, yes. But then, okay, now like the other way around and they’re, they’re happening, they’re back and forth. They’re back and forth. They’re back and forth. This back and forthness he’s saying is something like happening in every, every perception. I agree. And I think, I think that’s the phenomenological basis for platonic anagogy. Okay. Yeah. I’ve got to read it more. Yeah. But the thing about the imaginal let’s let’s let’s do, like, so the child picks up the stick and puts the blanket on in order to become a pirate or no, in order to become Zorro, let’s do specific. So here’s my cape and here’s my sword. Right. Notice that, right. It’s the, right. That the imaginal is enacted. It’s right. The, the child is selecting from all of the potential aspects of the piece of wood and the blanket and they’re doing it. Imaginally, right. They’re imagineally opening up. So what’s happening here? One way of thinking about the metaphor I’ve been using analogy, you know, what a heads up display is in a cockpit for a pilot. Okay. So you don’t want to be, when you’re in the middle of a dogfight, you don’t want to be looking down at your instruments because then you’re dead. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. What they do is they have a projector that projects onto the windshield. Oh, yeah. Right. All these things. So, right. The, the pilot can be looking through the windshield at the world, but can be noticing patterns in the world. There it is. Right. Right. There it is. Yeah. This is, this is called augmented reality. And if you played Pokemon go, you’ve done it with your phone. Yeah. Yeah. Augmented reality. Now here’s the idea. We can use imagination to augment reality. We can do imagineally augmented reality. And I think this, right. And Schindler makes this clear, right. This is where you start to get, cause Plato has this weird, ambiguous relationship to imagery, right. To images. He’s, he, he, oh, get rid of them, get rid of them. And then he uses them all over the place. Right. Like just the, the Republic itself is imaginal. The whole Republic is imaginal. Right. And what, what Schindler argues is that Plato is not engaging in a performative contradiction. Plato basically wants you to relate to images, neither transparently nor opaquely, but translucent. He wants you to look through them. And, and, and, and so you can do the imaginal augmentation of, of reality realization, if I can put it that way. Right. Right. I think, I think the place where we do that in a highly coordinated fashion, so we can pick up on those patterns that are most sacred to us, it’s religion. Religion is the serious play with imagineally augmented reality so that we can pick up the most profound patterns of anagogy that are capable. That we’re capable of. Right. Right. Right. So, yeah, you, you get that. I want, I want to, you do this and you’ve been doing it a lot recently. The face. Yeah. The face is imaginal for us. Yeah. You’re not really looking at the person’s soul, but you are. Yes. Bacon said, what other image would you have of a person’s soul other than their face? But of course their face is not their soul. Yeah. Somehow you look through it. You look through it by means of it and beyond it. And right. And when, and when, and when you are not only when you are optimally gripping, but when they through their face can optimally grip you, when they can catch and grasp your attention, like then you get the reciprocal opening and then you get the sense, oh, now I’m doing the idetic deduction. I’m being drawn into this person as they’re being drawn out into me. Yes. And then, and then there’s this process of this other thing that we find ourselves, we pop out of and find ourselves in. Then we go, Oh my God, that thing that just happened, right. The realization of the, of the unity through all of that, which wasn’t a thing. Well, but that’s the, I’ve been thinking about that too. Yeah. Cause you’ve been doing that pop out thing a lot. Yeah. There’s a second dimension to facing and we capture it in a, this slightly not, it’s not totally separate, but it’s a different meaning when we talk about facing something, you better face up to your future young man, right. So there’s the sense also, right. Not only of this, but of confrontation. Yeah. Right. Right. Whoa. I just faced something, right. Something. Yeah. Yes. And then come to terms with it. Yes, exactly. Seems to be the same. Yes. The same kind of movement. Like you face it and then you come to terms with it and the terms is. Another way. That’s really interesting. Yeah. Because we talk about when we want somebody to, to, to, to confront it, to, to allow themselves to really see into it and really be affected by you better face this, you’re not facing up to this. You better, right. And we talk about, right. Turning around and facing a different direction and all of this stuff around this centrally enacted imaginal entity. Yeah. That’s why somebody says, who’s it? Uh, I think it was an, what was it? An American, American. Was it poet? Someone said you’ve earned the face that you have by the time you hit 40. Right. Oh, that’s very good. I like that. Cause there’s, there, there is this element, like by the time you’ve done that enough times, you’ll see basically you’ll you’ve earned the face that you have. Whoever’s whoever’s there is the one we can go. Yep. That in some sense, your face also carries with it. That’s why it’s so, so meaningful. It’s like your face carries with it. All of the facing, right. All of the facing. And the coming to terms with it and speaking and coming to terms with it. Yeah. And it articulates it. Right. And we don’t have, we have it in metaphor, but not quite as starkly, but you know, there’s other cultures where there’s something like the phenomena of losing face that you lose the ability, right. To, to, uh, be regarded or treated as a person. Right. But, but imagine if we could, and I want to, I’m now trying to deeply invoke both meanings. Yeah. And you can, uh, I almost, for some reason, Wilka is coming to mind. Imagine if we could face everything. Imagine if we could get into this, but also the, the, the confrontation, the both senses of facing, imagine what it would be like if we could face everything. Yeah. Okay. I just got it. I just got it. Not just face and you, but actually almost like a verb facing. Yes. Like when I’m looking at faces me, I face it. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Is that reversibility? Yes. Yeah. This right. But also, so the, the, you know, the Antigone reciprocal opening, but also the otherness and the way it can challenge you and be beyond you. Right. Right. And you need to get, you need to go through a radical transform or transformation in order to face it. And you need to go through a radical transformation in order to face it. Yeah. He’s real guy. I think about how, again, how dialectic into the logos is just enacting all of this. Yeah. It is. It’s a so, so I’m, um, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is this sense of, so I’m reading, I’m reading, uh, I think it’s wool. Is it Wolfson is his last name. He’s the Jewish. Yeah. Yeah. The, the, um, the, the, uh, Jewish theologian mystical Kabbalah. Right. Right. Very, very influenced by Heidegger and the Continentalist and stuff. He’s amazing. And he keeps, I think one of the things that keeps I’m finding is baffling the way he talks about this sense of failing, right. Of, cause he’s talking a lot about this in terms of, uh, this is, you know, this is really interesting the way, the way he, I don’t know if I’m getting this wrong. I don’t have any reference point for this. Cause I don’t know Hebrew. Um, but I’m, I’m just struck by both through talking with Zevi and, and him. And how like fundamental for my understanding of the Kabbalah and there in the Hebrew point of view about, about mysticism is this unity of sound. And language all the way down to the alphabet where the, where the alphabet, the, the beginning, middle and last letter are the three senses of time. Right. Yes. Right. And that’s, and, and how one both disclose and closes and it reveals and hides each other back and forth and languages, such sounding out, you know, does this back and forth thing throughout the whole thing, right. And that the, the, the sense of this sense of preserving concealed this when you speak. So it’s like they, they, they, and in Wilson, Wilson, I think really is trying to get at this in multiple ways, as far as I can tell this sense that. That, um, you know, picking up on, I guess, Heidegger’s insight is like, whereas kind of metaphysics in some sense tries to reveal the whole thing, but they paradoxically don’t notice that they can seal it, right. By trying to reify, right. The thing that they see, they completely conceal the thing that they see. Right. They’re supposed to be. Yeah. And this is why for me, Plotinus is so central. They’re supposed to be right. But also, Regina and Pusa, they’re supposed to be an ongoing permanent, dialogue between mysticism and metaphysics. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. And well, I think you, wouldn’t you say that that’s Descartes formalized, right. Precisely the, the philosophy or metaphysics being something that doesn’t need to check anymore at the mystics. Exactly. Right. In some sense, right. The, it comes into combination in him that transformation is replaced by method. So we do not have to, we do not, because all thinking is propositional, we do not have to go through participation in transformation in order to get the disclosure of certain kinds of truths. All we need is a universal method that can be universally applied and does not require any transformation from us other than the learning and practice of the method. Yeah. So basically, yeah. So basically I say Descartes said, well, thanks mystics. We got it now. Yeah. And wrote down everything we said you said, we don’t need, we don’t need to look anymore. We got it now. Let’s. And that’s because the university had been separated from the monastery now by a century or more. There’d been the, the, the Titanic bloodshed. Yeah. 30 years war, the religious wars. Yeah. Um, so, I mean, I, I, I mean, I w it’s totally appropriate to criticize Descartes, but it’s also, I think incumbent upon us to realize why he made the moves he made. I mean, it’s almost like, it’s hard to see what, what a brilliant mind like his would do other than that within the historical social historical cultural context he was in. Right. Right. We are no longer in that context. We are very far from it. And so, um, I need to change. It’s funny when you bring up the Hebrew tradition, I thought you were going to go a different way, but what you said, it was actually constant because I was reminded of, uh, Elijah, um, uh, and, and, and I think is that we talked about it in one of our talks. It’s one of my favorite passages in the old Testament. Elijah has just called down fire from heaven and killed all the prophets, the 400 prophets of Baal. You’d think he’d be really sort of like, Hey, I’m on top of it. Instead, uh, Ahab and especially Jezebel, the queen are, are seeking to kill him. And so he flees into the wilderness and he starts to complain about how, you know, woe is me, self-pity. Yeah. Interesting how the Hebrew Bible really it’s happy to portray the flaws of even the greatest people. Yeah. It’s one of his great, uh, great signposts of its sake of its sacredness. Yeah. And that, and basically then God sort of calls him to come out. And then there’s like this huge earthquake. And then it’s the, and the text says, but God’s not in the earthquake. Very, very interesting thing to say, by the way. And then there’s a huge whirlwind. It’s sort of like tearing the mountain apart, but God’s not in the whirlwind. And Elijah is just watching all that. And then there’s a sheer silence and Elijah covers his face. Oh, whoa. Oh, because that carried the presence of God, even though all of this bronze age display of divine power actually did not convey the presence of God. The sheer silence. It’s funny because there’s many translations. Some translations are sheer silence. Others are the still, still, still small voice. What does that mean? Right. Yeah. Yeah. So there’s this thing that happened. And then the face and he, the facing thing, he has to cover his face because he’s going to be overwhelmed as he attempts to face it. And it’s not something he can see. It is only something he can hear, but his hearing is really not hearing. It’s hearing the boundaries of his hearing made pregnant and salient to him. It’s one of the, the old testament is such a hard book for me. Yeah. It’s a hard book. Yeah. So what’s the thing that’s hard? I’m only talking about how I see it. And of course I was biased in how I see it because I was brought up in a Christian tradition that sort of was sort of a, you know, the, the, the I’m biased in how I see it. Cause I was brought up in a Christian tradition that sort of was very patronizing and condescending to the Jews and to Hebrew interpretation of the old testament. So I want to just, that bias is clearly at work in me, but the thing, the thing is when you’re reading the old testament, this is how I’ve come to see it. You see the tension between there are pre axial bronze age ideas of God. And then there’s actual age revolution ideas of God. And they’re being, so think about, think about the context of what I just told you. What’s the preview? What’s the story that came just before that? A contest of the gods. Yeah. So Elijah goes out and all the prophets of Baal and he basically challenges them to a wizard’s duel. You, you know, let’s make a sacrifice. You pray to your gods and, and if they can come fire, then I’ll worship. But if I call down fire, then you have to worship your way. Right. And they, they, they pray all day and nothing’s happening. And he actually ridicules them and makes fun of them. And it’s like something out of Homer. It’s like a battle between the gods. It’s a wizard’s duel. There’s ridicule going on and then, and then they fail. And then he, he prays and fire from heaven falls and it burns it all up. And I think they, they then all the people present witnessing, they kill all the prophets of Baal. It’s a bloody violent display. And it’s just a test of power and glory. Like it’s bronze age, thoroughly, thoroughly bronze age. And then right after it, literally right after it is this actual age story that I just told you about the sheer silence right beside each other. And, and you just go like this. Wow. And that’s. Yeah. And I was brought up like, we just sort of read the Bible and I remember, I know I read the Bible like seven times and you know, you just pass from one to the other and now upon reflection, it’s like, I wonder, it must’ve been ignorance. I had no idea how I could move so smoothly from one to the other. Cause they’re like, right now they, they slapped me in the, they slapped me in the face. Yeah. It’s like, right. It’s like, right. In some, in some sense you could, you know, it’s funny. Cause when you, when you, I don’t know that much about the Bible. I don’t, I don’t, I don’t have a background in it. So, so even those stories are relatively new to me, but like, so when you, when you talked about it, I did get this sense of like, oh yeah, this is very familiar. But, and then when you talked about, oh, the still small voice and then the covering of his face, I got this sense of like, in some sense in that story, it seems like, and especially during that time, right. You can almost feel the emerging of the insights, right. Of the, of the axial age kind of coming through in that, like into the intuition of it, the very, very beginning sense of, wait a minute, what’s the common thing through all of this? If I actually perceive it, right. I will, I can no longer be who I am, right. Because I would, I need to be like this to see it like this and respond as normal. But if I see this, I’m going to end up in a different place. Yes. That’s the shame. Yeah. Right. Yeah. There, there, there, there, yeah, there’s the, it, you know, and they also buy these Socrates talks about how you see yourself in the image and the other person’s pupil, and that’s why we call it the pupil because you can study, right. Yeah. And all that sort of stuff. Um, but yeah, the idea of that to hear God is to, is to be drawn out of one’s self, like we talk, it’s a, it’s a, it’s a call to a radical transformative conformity that discloses to you your inadequacies, your sins, the ways in which you have, have, have fallen into self deception, the way you have, where you have failed to live up to the call to be who you should be. All of that is like suddenly thrust upon him. Right. It’s it, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s, like I said, it’s, it’s a strange, wonderful book and terrible book in the original sense. Uh, when you read the old Testament. Um, and what’s really interesting, and I forget what’s who it was at Finkelstein. I can’t remember who commented on this. It’s a, uh, a Jewish, uh, theologian about the disappearance of God. So God, God, God walks around and talks to people very bronze age. Yeah. And then as you go through the old Testament, God withdraws and withdraws and withdraws and withdraws. Yeah. And he only speaks once. Maybe twice in the new Testament. He seems to speak perhaps to Joseph in a dream and to Mary, although that’s also an angel and then, but there’s a, when Jesus is baptized, that’s the one time where the voice of God is heard again. Yeah. And so this withdrawal of God. Yeah. Totally. Which is reminds me of those. So the, the, the Bible as a whole is doing those two stories. You’ve got, you know, the fire from heaven and God is super present. And then you get the withdrawal into the sheer silence. Yeah. It isn’t, isn’t it, isn’t it set up in Christianity where like the, the, the, the new Testament is, is actually in some sense, a dialogue or in response. Of with the old Testament. It’s like a, like Adam, right? Adam is now three births is Jesus. Like that there’s these kinds of parallels. Isn’t that kind of like the, yeah, the dialectic between the old and new Testament that continually goes on. From a Christian point of view, obviously Jew wouldn’t say that. Yeah. But yeah, I was reading, I think it’s Laird’s book. I do Alexio Divina. He wrote a series of books on silence and the contemplative life. But he talks about how in that silence, we go from the image of God to the likeness of God, right? Yeah. Which is just really, and so that’s sort of how the relationship between the new Testament and the old Testament, the old Testament, we are in the image of God, but then that is moved into the likeness of God, God likeness. So we, right. We go through the metanoia that exaps to use my language, the image of God into this ongoing right. And a God gay of a God pay. Yeah. Yeah. And there’s that sense of just the thing that the image that you evoked with that in some sense that. And God, right, spoke. It’s not this. It’s not that. Right. But it’s in this sense of hearing the limits of what he understood up to that point is beyond that is what God got that sense of not that, not that God, I can tell me to be thinking about that for a long time. Because notice what God is trying to what sorry, the South of the 10th, please, on behalf of God, but instead of showing Elijah his power in order to in order to comfort him, he actually tries to provoke metanoia in Elijah, almost like a whole. Totally. What he’s trying to do is reorient Elijah will go back to his mission after this experience. Yeah. Right. So instead of giving him the power that he seeks, I suppose, this is something I’m trying to draw out in the scripture. Maybe I’m getting it wrong. But what happens is the encounter with God is instead the radical metanoia. And then what a Christian would say is that what Jesus is doing is trying to make metanoia through a gap, a way of life rather than a one time. Yeah. Yes. Wow. And you can just hear this thing of just the turn of the logos, realizing itself, falling into an image of itself, losing itself, coming back in as separate a conversation, realizing itself, but this kind of these, but then when it comes back and here’s the thing I think that you’re talking about with it, with all the levels of like spatially. Right. Right. Imaginally. Right. And, and conceptually and then deal logos with each of these is kind of in some sense, you can see it going back and forth until one penetrates the other, which affords it’s also, it’s an evolving. Right. And that’s the key thing in a Regina. Yeah. It’s not emanation and emergence. Yeah. It’s emanation emergence. Yes. Complete interpenetration. Yeah. Oh, so you can kind of see that in the, the evolution from the image of God, right. To what was the other one? Um, like a likeness of God. Right. So it’s like, you could see it’s like, you’d have to see the image to then come into conformity, right? Exactly. Exactly. And then we realize a likeness. Yeah. Exactly. Right. When you, when you exact the image so that you can transform into increasing conformity with God, that’s when you pass into God likeness, that’s actually the, the translation of a term that Plato uses throughout the Republic, right? God likeness will become more and more like God. Yeah. Right. And, and, and this is perhaps a little bit heretical, but Jesus promises that his followers will do greater things than him and that they will also be sons. And I would add daughters of, of God. Um, and I sort of pointing that verse out is a little bit, I think, uncomfortable for sort of orthodox Christians, but it’s clear, I mean, I’m rereading, I’m rereading the New Testament. I’m rereading, I’m rereading the New Testament and I’m doing that by reading a new translation by David Bentley Hart. Oh yeah. Which is directly from the Greek and he’s trying to stay as loyal to the Greek as possible, right? Yeah. He knows the Greek. He’s Eastern Orthodox. He knows Neoplatonism through and through. Yeah. He’s brilliant. Yeah. He’s brilliant. And, and, and you encounter these verses that like, wow, Jesus just said, we will do more than he ever did and like, how are we supposed to understand that given sort of traditional Christian ideas? Um, and I don’t know what to say. And I’m not trying to disparage Christian faith. I don’t do that. I don’t want to do that, but there’s something, there’s something about this. Right. Right. Right. Right. And then the, like this kind of thing that, that, that just immediately, the moment you do this, you’re in a different relationship. What does that relationship connotate? Right. Like then it comes into dialogue, this sense of, and you can just imagine it’s like, yeah, then we see the thing that we w we have to become and seeing it. And then we see it and then boom, we get a new face and then we see another. And then we come into dialogue, right. In this, this popping, transforming, reorganizing the whole thing. This is great, John. Well, I’m glad to hear you say that. Like I said, I, I bounced it off Jordan. Yeah. I bounced off you. I actually, I’d like a copy of this. Oh, absolutely. So I’m going to release the video where I do this with Jordan and then I do it with you and then maybe one with Chris. Yeah. Do, do I dedicate induction on idetic induction. And then maybe we should, then we should all do it together. Absolutely. All right, my friend, I have to keep going. Me too. This is perfect. Great. All right. Bye. Bye bye.