The Nature and Power of Love with DC Schindler and Ken Lowry | Voices with Vervaeke | Transcription

Transcription for the video titled "The Nature and Power of Love with DC Schindler and Ken Lowry | Voices with Vervaeke".

1970-01-01T03:11:35.000Z

Note: This transcription is split and grouped by topics and subtopics. You can navigate through the Table of Contents on the left. It's interactive. All paragraphs are timed to the original video. Click on the time (e.g., 01:53) to jump to the specific portion of the video.


Introduction And Setting The Discussion Stage

Dr. John Vervaeke kicks off the episode with a warm welcome to his guests, DC Schindler and Ken Lowry, setting the stage for a deep dive into philosophy, cognition, and the human experience. (00:00)

Hello everyone. I'm frequently humbled and touched, motivated and encouraged when people contact me by email or texting or commenting or they greet me on the street and tell me that my work has been transformative for them. This has been the case for you and also if you want to share it with other people, please consider supporting my work by joining my Patreon community. All financial support goes to the Vervakey Foundation where my team and I are diligently working to create the science, the practices, the teaching and the communities. If you want to participate in my work and many of you ask me that, "How can I participate? How can I get involved?" Then this is the way to do it. The Vervakey Foundation is something that I'm creating with other people and I'm trying to create something as virtuously as I possibly can. No grifting, no making, setting myself up as a guru. I want to try and make something really work so that people can support, participate and find community by joining my Patreon. I hope you consider that this is a way in which you can make a difference and matter. Please consider joining my Patreon community at the link below. Thank you so very much for your time and attention. Welcome back everyone to another episode of Voices with Vervakey. I pause there because I was trying to keep track of all the things I've been doing. This is my third with David Schindler, D.C. Schindler and Ken Lowry. He's the second one on my channel. As many of you know, I've been looking forward to this conversation all day. I love talking. I've been an intellectual hero of mine and so being able to talk in this really dialogical manner that has been a great blessing. I'm going to ask each one of you to briefly reintroduce yourself and then I'll introduce the topic that we're going to discuss. Maybe we'll start with you, Ken. All right. I'm Ken Lowry. I've had the honor of being in several conversations now with John. After a first conversation a little around a year ago, I started my own YouTube channel and so that has been a wonderful adventure getting to meet all kinds of people and explore kind of last time I think John, you referred to me as a seeker and I find that very much apt to how I engage this space. Here's a seeker and interested in where we go today. My name is David Schindler. I go by D.C. Schindler to ask us a sort of professional name originally was to distinguish myself from my father who was a colleague of mine but he passed away last November but I think I'll stick with D.C. as a professional name. It's easy to remember. I teach I'm a professor of metaphysics and anthropology at the John Paul II Institute and particularly interested in ultimate questions, sort of a generalist, ultimate questions about the meaning of being specifically and especially in relation to the transcendental beauty, goodness and truth and then the anthropological correlates to those in love and freedom and reason and to think of all those in relation to each other and to think of how they illuminate each other. That's basically what I have spent my life on and expect to spend the rest of my life and of course only scratch the surface of this endlessly interesting question. So this is amazing. So I was talking off camera with Ken and David about what you were talking about today and we're sort of supposed to move into these three leaps and talking about the leap into reason, the leap into faith and the leap into love and I think we will still end up talking about those but I want to give us a little bit more tighter context perhaps a deeper context. So I'm referring, I'm currently reading, I'm almost done, David's excellent essay, "Giving Cause to Wonder" which is a chapter in this book that I highly recommend if you're interested in reason you need to read the Calculus of the reason. It's one of the really important books on reason and in there David explores, I'll move to second, David you explore, you explore the notion of wonder and it's deep relationship to notions of causation and then you do a significant, let's call it something like a rehabilitation of the notion of causation and then you take it back into a neoplatonic context by a Dionysia, Dionysia's the Ariapadite. And then you're doing that as, and the person who's the foil for the essay is Heidegger, his understanding of wonder and he's rolling it into his more general notion of glaze and height and the lease mint and stepping away from causation and stepping away from in full willfulness and then you argue basically there's something deeply right in Heidegger because it's trying to get the relationship to God or ultimate reality or the one out of the, I don't want to rely on technical terms or, so ontic, and ontic means sort of within the spatial temporal causal network that we understand as the natural world, something like that.


In-Depth Dialogue: Love, Cognitive Science, Dialogue Importance, Philosophy And Power Of Metaphor

DC Schindler shares a profound insight into the nature of love, describing it as a transformative force that shapes our perception of reality. This moment promises to leave listeners pondering the power of love in their own lives. (05:32)

Beings. And Heidegger wants us to orient famously, wants us to orient towards being. That is not just the abstract quality shared by all beings or anything like that. It's a deeper profounder thing, the presence and the lighting and all these metaphors that he has. And so Heidegger makes the claim that we're really going to recover the capacity for wonder and related things like awe that we need to give up, trying to understand being in the same language, the same concepts that we understand beings. And since this is like a Kantian argument to since cause relationship between beings, between things that are already in existence in space and time and having a specific relationship to each other, we can't use cause to understand the relationship between beings and being. That would be a category mistake which he typically calls onto theology. And you want to say that Heidegger's argument has some negative sides to it. And it's also mistaken because it has a very limited notion of causation. We enrich our notion of causation, we can bring back a positive notion of wonder that is a kind of knowing because it puts us into a proper relation with the kind of causal relation that exists between beings and the ground to be in. Is that I tried to do a lot in a very... That's an amazingly succinct, yeah, there's a lot going on in that essay and you managed to tie together the basic themes succinctly. So, yeah, that's that's and there's a lot to explore and all that obviously that's the kind of basic parameters. So I, which... Yeah, I do like to open this up. Thank you. It's good to hear that I got it right. And I don't mean this derogatively, it's a complex argument. It is, yeah. And so I wanted to and I'm going through it very carefully and I want to make sure that I I dropped it well. It's the linchpin of the book. I think so. I think so. I'm glad to hear you say that because I shall. Everything is turning on this cultural argument. So, I mean, there's a couple of things I want to talk to you eventually. I want to talk to you about awe and wonder and reverence and the way I think how to go doesn't adequately peel them apart and put them in relationship to each other. Yeah. But before that, let's take this because I mean, this is an argument that I have been influenced by the argument about ontophiology. I know you have a chapter in that specifically that I haven't read that. So let's just play in this playing field if that's possible. But to see what you'd ever want to say too, which is, you know, it's I'm going to try and be as neutral as possible. So I'll say something like standard current theism, pictures God as a supreme being as the greatest of things and is therefore inadequate for understanding what is truly ultimate, which is the ground of being or being in the Heideggerian sense, which is that, which gives everything its presence. Right. If it's intelligibility and its presence in to intelligibility, etc. And so classical fieism, no, sorry, we move the adjective. The first fieism. Yeah. Some people have said well, classical fieism is different. That's part of what I want to say. Let's say current common, we could even call it sort of standard North American theism sees God as the supreme being. And that is to make a profound category mistake that being no matter how great a brand couldn't be ultimately, could be the ground of the truth, the good and the beautiful, etc. And therefore it is a fundamental mistake that is ultimately cut off from being. And this is where Heidegger sort of rolls into the Nietzschean critique that that ultimately leaves us in sort of a nihilistic frame. Now, I believe you want to answer that and you want to answer that squarely from within a tradition that I have been lately defending at length, which is the Neil Platonic tradition. So how's that for an initial setup? That's a great setup. Yeah. And I mean, that's, I mean, I think that the first thing that one needs to say is Heidegger is profoundly right about so much of this critique. And I think it's one of the reasons for his enduring significance in spite of, you know, all the battalions with Nazism and anti-Semitism and all those things are actually very important to understand him properly, even if they're not the most immediate thing that one ought to attend to one needs to try to understand what he's saying first, but those things become very relevant. But, you know, he remains of interest to people because I think he speaks to this sense that we have of a kind of absence of any mystery, a sense of the sacred, a sense of, of, you know, wonder, awe, these reverence, these various things that you mentioned, that they, they are marginalized in our culture, you know, the sort of technocratic culture that we're all familiar with. And so when Heidegger begins speaking about those things, it makes a strong impression, you know, for those who have ears to hear as Heidegger might say. But the problem is that it seems to me he, his diagnosis misses the mark on some really fundamental things that require him to present his thought as an alternative to the Western tradition and the Christian tradition. And that, you know, one can talk about why that's problematic in various ways.


Ken Lowry offers a fascinating perspective on cognitive science, discussing its implications for our understanding of the mind and consciousness. This segment is a must-listen for anyone interested in the intersection of psychology and neuroscience. (12:45)

But one of the more immediate implications of is doing that is that it also requires us to, it forces us into a kind of an alienation from Western culture and Western civilization. So that in order to be, to enter into the profound depths of things, you have to basically abandon the world as we, as we know it, but it's a little bit of an oversimplification. But there's something to that. And, you know, this has something to do with his, you know, flight to the Black Forest and the, the cabin and the Black Forest and his, and his interest, I think, in at least some dimensions of national socialism and so forth. But what I wanted to do in that essay is to try to show that one can embrace the critique that Heidegger makes of modern technological thinking. And rather than abandon Western thought, simply enter much more profoundly into Western thought and recognize that there are resources in this, in this tradition that help us to recover the things that Heidegger wants to recover. And ultimately, in a way, I think is, is, is more adequate than Heidegger's own offering. So you sort of out Heidegger, Heidegger, in one respect. And, and you, you remain within the Western tradition. It's, it's, you don't have to, you don't have to invent a kind of a false mystical secondary reality to, to live what's being proposed. Hey, this is excellent. Let me pick up on this, which is, I mean, part of it is, I think, it was not only, I think, an incorrect reading of Christianity. I think you're also making the argument that there's an incorrect reading of Plato and then the platonic tradition. Absolutely. And that's crucially important. And those things go together, by the way. Yes. I'm not trying to separate them. I just, yeah. No, no, no, I read, I didn't mean that as a correction. I just wanted to point that out. Yeah. For the audience here. Yeah. So, first of all, let's, as you've been suggesting, let's get Piedder his do, is it? And I'm not making you a representative, I'm asking you to just comment as, you know, as a deep reflective thinker. Do you think that a Heidegger's critique does land on how many people understand God today? Oh, there's no question about that. I mean, no question at all. Yeah. In fact, I mean, yeah, there's, I think in Anglo American thought, analytic philosophy, there's an even, you know, it's interesting, even with very, you know, well, intelligent and well educated critiques of certain aspects of a kind of antique view of God. I think there's still, there still is at the root. And one can go way back on this. There still is at the root, this idea that God is just in a way the greatest being in the world. And one of the, one of the evidences of that is that, in fact, I had a long discussion with my students just this morning on this theme. We can't help but think of God's causal presence in competition with the natural realities of the world. That if God does something, you know, if things act on their own, that means that God is not acting. And if God is a causal agent, then that, you know, displaces natural agency. And that's just, I mean, you can see why one would think that, you know, if you think of agents tend to, to interact, they limit each other. That's Spinoza's argument, right? Yeah, that's right. That's exactly right. Yeah. Yeah. You know, Spinoza is an interesting figure on this score. But in any event, it's a very difficult thing to think. I mean, you know, it's, I don't mean that it's just a rhetorical throwaway line. It's an extremely difficult thing to think transcendent causality. I mean, there's a way in which by by its very nature, it exceeds what we can think of, but we can we can grasp it by analogy that, but that requires a real sort of disciplining of thought and a kind of disposition of a way of life, ultimately, that opens one to see that. That's, that's not easy to come by. Okay, that's beautiful. I think you're right. I think that this requires real spiritual exercise. And before I mean, you know, there's Sunday's stuff about, you know, dialogues like the amenities are getting, like sort of winging us through this really powerful spiritual exercise. And so we stop thinking about the forms as if they're things. Yeah. So I mean, this is interesting because this sort of hit me. May I just add to that? I mean, this is this is why I do think Christianity really doesn't need neoplatonism because this is a line of thought in neoplatonism that's really central. It may be in a way the central theme in neoputonic thought, I think was to make an argument for that. And you know, that that belonged to the Christian tradition up until, you know, the the high middle ages late, the late high middle ages when Christianity and neoplatonism were start were put in a kind of opposition to each other. And that that's where these these problems really start to develop. But even I was into a no no no, no, no, that's fine. I was just going to say, I mean, I'm really, I'm really grateful for your work and for this conversation because I mean, even for a sort of took out when I was younger, still within the religious framework, I got struck by something that is not exactly this, but is the precursor to this. So I'm watching the 10 commandments. Right. You know, as well, usually when I was a kid, it was always playing on TV around earlier, April around Passover, stuff like that, I watching it. And there's the parting of the Red Sea and everybody's going, and all the people in the room are going, and then, and this is just because of the weirdness of my mind, but my mind thinks, but like in the causation of even the solar system, that's just a minuscule event. Yeah. Right. And I thought, what does that mean? What does that mean about this drive? Right. And I didn't have any way to process it. So all I was left with is sort of anxiety, which is, right? And then, so that is that is sort of been haunting me. And that's why I have been quite influenced by the hidey-garing and onto a particular critique, because I think it lands very strongly against that sort of conception. Well, you know, I mean, the classical tradition, you know, when you wanted to find evidence of the presence of God, you would point to the order of the cosmos. Yes. And it's interesting, there's a certain strain of Christian, especially modern Christian thinking that when you want to look for the presence of God, you look for a disruption of the order of the cosmos, you know, that home. And I mean, think about the implication of that point that God is not only when he's interrupting nature, I mean, that that that means onto theology, you know, you're thinking as a being that's sort of struggling with and fighting against the natural order, being the principle of the whole thing.


Dr. Vervaeke, Schindler, and Lowry engage in a thought-provoking discussion about the importance of dialogue in fostering understanding and growth. This conversation is sure to resonate with listeners who value open-mindedness and intellectual exploration. (20:18)

Right. Right. Oh, that's a great insight and connection to you. Thank you for that. Yeah. I mean, you know, Aquinas is really clear on this. You know, he says he can't. I mean, there's a there's a basic way in which God can't change the course of nature. And in a certain respect, Aquinas says, and you think, well, wait a minute, is this some kind of natural fatalism? But the reason that his explanation for that is that it's precisely because the course of nature is already an expression of his will. Yes. Yeah. And and and and so in a way it would be a sign of impotence to change. It would mean that his will is arbitrary and not the radical origin of the natural order. I mean, you know, the implications of that are just immense. So this this really starts to shift things in a really important way. So now I want to I want to take up what I think is behind content some way, I'm sorry, behind the particle, it's only just caught. You know, it gives the famous kind of arguments that causation is something that is part of the grammar of the natural world. It's part of the manifold that we impose on things in order to make sense of them. So it's a good stand causation to something beyond the natural world makes no sense. Right. Right. So so well, just if you want to just reply at that point, please. Yeah, yeah, no, absolutely. I mean, so this is the thing about the critique of causality. So if you associate causality already with a kind of technological thinking, yes, and then seek beyond it for some kind of redemption from that, a liberation, a genuine freedom from that. The problem is that you are, again, I have a lot of sympathy for that. But think about the implication, you end up then abandoning causality to technological thinking. You see, then the whole world that's covered by causality, which is frankly, all of it in a certain respect, ends up being an expression of force and violence and so forth. It's a very different thing if you say, well, let's, let's rather than associating causality with an imminent to sort of thinking and then finding an alternative radical, you know, sort of transcendent kind of thinking that the lassenheit and so forth as an alternative, let's rethink the meaning of causality. Yeah. Yes. That actually integrates that openness to the transcendent. And then that allows us both to have this genuinely mystical in the proper sense of the term sense of transcendence. But that also affects our everyday life and the very natural meaning of things and they're unfolding. And I think, I mean, there's not world enough in time for these things, but you know, if you can imagine scientists who embrace a richer, deeper notion of causality and how that would enrich what science means and our capacity to investigate the nature of an atom or something. I mean, these things just would become so gloriously fascinating and rich because they would all be a manifestation of being and of God ultimately. Well, that was beautiful. I mean, I've had an interacting, some of it, I get the intellect of the director, like with some scientists like Wolfgang Smith, it would be helpful to bring in sort of metaphorical schema that he makes use of, he makes a distinction between horizontal and vertical conversation. And the argument, and I'm not going to repeat all the arguments because I've been releasing videos one last week on why we need to, why we really have to bring back a vertical causation that is not just epistemic, but properly part of the structure of reality. And so part of it, like, tell me if this is putting words into your mouth or not, but I think what you're saying is, you know, can't presuppose that all we meant by causation is this for over horizontal relation where things are moving each other because he's, he's enmeshed within the Newtonian scientific arching framework. And so, and that all we mean by cause is making something move, right? And then, and then movement, of course, is dependent on space and time. It can't be ultimate. Cause has to be locked within space and time. And then, and then, but then there's, there's this other notion of cause which is not making move, but bringing forth, I'm trying to, I mean, they say can be can be assimilated into the movement thing because we've been doing it for four centuries. But the notion of vertical causation that I'm trying to articulate with the axis of emergence and domination. And the idea that there's a causation that is not like about how things move each other, but how things are present such that they are intelligible to us. Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, one thing, Wolfgang Smith is a profoundly interesting but, but, you know, one thing I would like to ask him at some point, if I ever have the opportunity is, is if he sees, if he sees an analogy. So this would be one of the implications of the argument I'm trying to make in that essay is that in addition to recognizing sort of an alternative causality to the normal scientific one, to hold on to a connection between. Yes. So that even the horizontal causality will express something of the vertical causality, something of the, and, you know, something of that transcendence. And this would be, here's a sort of a concrete example of that. You know, in modern scientific, scientific, I don't like that term for a variety of reasons I don't want to get into now. But in the kind of conventional scientific view, you think of causation in terms of the imposition of force. Yes. You know, it's one thing, imposes a force that brings about some effect, a cause and effect. And so it's, it's essentially dynamic. Rather than saying, okay, no, instead of imposition of force, we need something more generous, like, you know, bringing into being. Well, I would say, let's do both. On the one hand, yes, recognize the priority of vertical causality, which is this generous, letting be opening up, allowing to emerge, giving rise to there's all sorts of language. But then see that that's also operating even when one cue ball hits another, one bill your ball hits another. It's not simply force imposing, you know, it's, it's also there's a kind of communication. Well, let me try, let me try to work. I make you so in my work, I make you so at least your your arrow. Let's do the two billiard balls. Okay, well, why did the second bill your ball move? Well, the first one hit it. But why else didn't move? Well, it moved because there were like the ground, the ground is flat that actually towards the balls rolling. Both balls have a particular shape that allows them to move. There's only air that has insignificant insufficient resistance to prevent them. Right. And so she talks about not causes between events, but strengths between conditions and conditions are exactly the things that give. But the thing is that they give, like it's it's it's the thing about there's selective and enabling constraints. There's constraints that give more possibilities, make things possible. And then there are constraints that limit those possibilities so you don't get chaos. Right. To make them meaningful. Right. Make them meaningful, make them intelligible, make them predictable, make them be something that is communicable. And so one of the ways I try to think about what we've been talking about is to try to get people to step back and take their focus off a relationship between events and take a look at a relationship between conditions. And then when you talk about conditions, you go down, you can go down to quantum novel probably, and you can go up to relativistic, like what are laws? Laws are statements of universal constraints on how things can happen. That's how I would try and introduce the vertical dimension and show how it deeply and globally woven with the horizontal dimension. That's that's exactly it. That's exactly it. And think about there, you're you're you're entering into the depth. See, you know, if causation is nothing but transmission of force, then there's nothing to enter into with the mind. It's all opaque, and all you can do is calculate and measure. Yes. You know, but once you once you introduce this other dimension, you realize it's a it's a much meaningful thing. You know, one thing to add too, is that motion itself is a form. Yes, exactly. That's being being communicated so that the being moved is acquired a kind of participation in a form as well. So, yeah, all those things. And now now the mind, it's not like you're you know, people worry that you're mystifying. And you know, when you add these dimensions, but that's not necessary. You know, and you're not excluding the measurable dimension. You know, so so those things have their place. It's just that they become part of a much more concrete and and layered textured event and reality. So two things about that. There's now a considerable movement in maybe it will achieve consensus within physics.


DC Schindler delves into the philosophical concept of 'being', offering a nuanced interpretation that challenges conventional wisdom. This moment is likely to spark curiosity among listeners with a penchant for philosophy. (30:56)

And of course, I'm not a physicist, so but as far as I can understand it, to argue that space and time are not fundamental, that they are in fact also emergent phenomena. So the very things that were the sort of basis for a lot of anomalous thought are now being folded into something from which they so that is just that like what like like that that is a statement of the priority of vertical causation over horizontal causation. If anybody was going to make it, right? Face and time are emergent. Well, that means that causing things to move can't be the ultimate right? It can be the ultimate form of cause. There's this other thing that you're relying on at the heart of your physics. And then another related point is you mentioned measurement and part of Wolfgang's argument is the measurement problem, which is the measuring device has to be at a different ontological level than the thing it measures because it has to have a kind of card that has to have a kind of constancy and permanence to it that the flux below doesn't have. If you can't measure quantum things at the quantum level, we need something that has a reality. This is his solution, which I think is the only viable solution for the measurement problem. So science is not only pointing to this vertical cause, it's presupposing it in every actual measurement. Yeah. I mean, there are several things to comment on there. I mean, just one very brief thing that I mean, and each one of these could open up and do it. But just very briefly, I mean, one of the things that I appreciate that has changed my thinking from Wolfgang Smith is his notion of, you know, when he makes a distinction between the physical and the corporeal. Yes. I don't especially like that terminology for a time. But the very point that there's there's something normative about the human senses and human perception in the meaning of things. I think that's an absolutely fundamentally important point that needs to be recovered. Well, I've been making an argument along those lines converging with this. I've been making it before I met him, and then he talked and then I could try to develop it. But the argument is based, the argument is, you know, any physics that is trying to claim that only the bottom level is real is requiring on scientists at a much higher level, right, reading instruments and making measurements and talking to each other and making claims that could be true. And like, if that is all epiphenomenal and illusory, then it gives us no license for drawing conclusions about the bottom level. There's a sense in which reduction is an actually really undermined itself when it tries to get its epistemology, its an ontology together. Yeah. No, and that's, I mean, in the end, that really is an incontrovertible argument. I mean, that absolutely, once you see it, you can't deny it. It's one of those. And, you know, before we start recording, I had mentioned that I'd like to pursue at some point with you a conversation about the nature of perception and it being. But let's put that on the docket for a future concept. I would really, really love to hear from you about that. But the other thing that I wanted to comment on in terms of causality and vertical and horizontal, I find incredibly illuminating the contribution of Dionysius, whom you mentioned that I have. Foreground in this essay. One of the things that amazed me was how, and, you know, in a way, this is in other neo-plateness, but I find it so beautifully expressed by him. And so succinctly and powerfully, the idea that, you know, the language of cause out, you know, this is why I sort of took him off in relation to Heidegger. The relation of causality is everywhere, Dionysius. I started circling it, you know, I pulled out the Greek and just found it every single page he uses the language. I read that book, like I've read the book through multiple times, and I do regular Lectio Divina on that book. So I really, I'm really trying to start with this. Yeah, you and I really are on the same page. I think that it's one of the most extraordinary productions of the human spirit, I think, in history. But even, you know, what it is, he uses the language of causality, but there's none of it. It's not in the least bit sort of technocratic. I mean, you know, talk about avoiding the ontotheology problem and, you know, this profound sense of thinking, this thanking, and reason, and reverence, and so forth. I mean, that's just pervasive. But he doesn't see that as up, as intention with the language of causality. I mean, to the contrary, for him, all causes ultimately come down to goodness and beauty. And so every single cause insofar as it's causal at all, is causal as an expression of goodness and beauty. And that means that, you know, that means that everything that happens in the cosmos is an expression of love. That's what that means ultimately. You know, from the rock rolling down the hill to, you know, any sort of natural event. Let's go in on that because I don't want people to just think that's, you know, poetry on a hallmark card. There's a piece of argument being made there. So let's let's slow it down. If you don't mind, let's open it up step by step. So the first is, you know, and you make this point, and I think it's bang on. And it's like, all right, right, that, you know, Dionysus, and he contrary to Heidegger, he seems to be well aware of the Heideggerian sort of the Aristotelian causes. Right. Because he invokes. Unquestionably. Yeah, no, I mean, it's right. Yeah. Unquestionably. Yeah. Okay. So but then you make a really cool move, which is, but Dionysus, he's almost like he's looking through the four Aristotelian causes, or original, right? That that like if you were to say, so for everybody's watching, Aristoteles causes are not our notion of cause, because our notion of cause is the, the to transfer force and to make something move. And that's it. Yeah. So this is kind of a little bit of undergraduate thing, but it's helpful to not think of the four causes, but rather thinking of them as the four B causes, right? It's like the things you would invoke to explain something and make it intelligible and understandable. But you also have to be pre-con, you have to mean, you have to think that that means you're discovering something about the nature of something to when you're explaining it. So all of that. So the cause, there, of course, there's the one that we have thought was in Aristotelian cause, which is the efficient, which is the moving things. But as we've already been talking, that's probably a misreading, because the there's a more original meaning that was more like bringing forth, which isn't just making locomotion, trying to think of another name for that other cause. Then there's material cause, which doesn't mean the same thing as it does for us, because we think of matter as stuff. Right. The ancient world matter is potentiality. And it's sort of what's what was the potential that was seen to the form. And that's part of how you explain it. So potentiality, real possibility, as Urero talks about, because constraints don't shape events, they shape possibility. I do this with my students, I'll say, what do you believe in scientific laws? Where is it? Where's it happening? Tuesdays, right? Where's it happening? You're Pluto, like, oh, wait, it's on an event, right? Okay. And so you've got the material cause, and then you've got the formal cause, which is this structural functional organization that binds all the different aspects of a thing together, so that no matter what we do, it can't become unintelligible to us. It's that through line, that so no matter wherever we stop, we can find how all these aspects are sort of gluing together. It's often, it's often pointed to with metaphors of shape, but it's not nearly shape, right? The sort of structural functional organization that binds all the different, so you actually never see the whole of anything in perception, yet you have a sense of its form, right? And that's the formal cause. And then there's the final cause, which is the one that I find most problematic, which is the idea that the reason for which something is done, its purpose or its goal. So where I find that problematic is I think that works wonderful for living things. I find that problematic for non-living things. And then I'll just shut up in a sec. And then the idea is when Dionysus is invoking cause, he doesn't want to talk at that level, right?


Ken Lowry discusses the power of metaphor in shaping our thoughts and experiences, providing intriguing examples that illustrate his point. This segment is bound to captivate listeners interested in the power of language and storytelling. (40:12)

He wants to, he's pointing to, like you said that in a couple different places, like, oh wow, this is important. David's repeating this, right? He's pointing to the, he's pointing to the, the, the, the cause if I can put it that way. So, so the sense that, so, and just everybody who's watching, the phenomenon, just go to your phenomenological sense right now. The sense of all of those somehow belonging together and right, and they belong together and they make sense of each other in an interdependent fashion. And, and realness is your sense of intelligibility, in a very, very profound way, right? And, and so that's what Dionysus is trying to point out, right? What is it that is, that is holding them all together, the good and the beautiful is his answer. So, first of all, I just wanted to give that a little bit of a tutorial for people who are here, just as, right? And then, one more thing, if you put that into something you also make really clear is you're saying, okay, well, this, this, this, this, I don't know, this, who is this, this bringing forth from this polarization, right, is like a giving, but it's also simultaneously a receiving. Okay, now explain that and then we've got the next move to why love, because if we got, okay, we've got the, I hope this is working for a, a free move, right? You've got the polarization and it's, it's bringing forth, who's this, the original meaning is springing forth, and this is like, this is an ultimate given, right? And, but that giving is simultaneously receiving, it's not a giving and then a receiving. It's right. So, why that? What's it? I know you make an argument, I want to hear you do it. What's the argument for that? And then then we have, and this is why you're saying love, because love is where we experience the interpretation of intelligibility and realness and the springing forth that is simultaneously a giving and a receiving. That's the way. Yeah, I've been up there. There's a, there is a lot there. I hope I can do this in a way without drifting into abstraction. I'm hoping I can stay concrete with this. But the first, the first thing to say is, is it all turns on the affirmation of goodness as the nature of the first cause, the first principle, the or cause. And one could give an argument for that, but I don't want to try to throw too many arguments out at once, but, but recognizing that the original cause, that, that from which all things proceed is good and generous generosity. It means that every effect, one of the implications of that point is that every effect is a, is a reception of goodness. It's a response to goodness. It's somehow a result of, of goodness and, and, and a response to it. And in the classical tradition, that's the very definition of love. Yes. Yes. Is precisely the reception of goodness. So, so here you have a cause as, as good. And the effects are the race of tivity to goodness, which is to say that effects are love, are aros. The things that are, they are in so far as they desire the good, you might say. And, and now this, this, this, again, this sounds like a hallmark card or, or, or a very sophisticated hallmark card, maybe. But, but, I mean, this is the, this is the, the, the classical neo-phrithonic tradition. This is, we've worked out in, in detail, that the very nature of things, because they're caused by the good is, is love, is, is aros. Now what, what Dionysius does is he, he deepens that and he recognizes, if, if it's the case that the being of things is their reception of their cause, which is their reception of goodness, which is their love that they are, if that is, if that's what they are, then what, what they are, what they, what they receive and receiving themselves is nothing other than the good. So in, in, in receiving the good, as he says, they become good like. Yes, yes, yes. Okay. So then, so now you have a whole chain of things. You have goodness as cause, you have aros as a fact, but aros precisely is reception of goodness and reception of goodness is now image of the good. Yes. Being like the good. Now what is, what is the nature of the good? Yes. To give. Yeah. And so now, so insofar as things receive themselves, they are, you might say, I mean, to put this in a, in a somewhat simpler way, they're receiving the very capacity and inclination to give themselves. Yes. Yes. Yes. And, and that, that, that, that means that, that reception and generosity are flip sides of the same coin at this deep, deep, deep level. Yes. Now that means that the good that is pure generosity, if genear generosity and, and reception and receiving our flip sides of the same coin, that allows us to, to think of God as pure generosity as also, in a certain sense, pure reception, right, septivity. So now what does that mean? That means, as Dionysseus points out, and this is, this is, I mean, these, this sounds very abstract, but once, once you start to put the pieces together, you realize it just, it has to be, this really is, the only way to really make sense of, of, of reality, that means when God causes the world, it's not, it's not in the form of an imposition of force. Yes. It's not, it's not, um, a, a simple, sort of transitive action acting on. No. And that's what Heidegger was most concerned about in Christianity was precisely. But to be fair to him, a lot of people have that sort of artisan image or understanding of God. Yeah. Almost everybody. Yeah. I mean, no, no, he's not, he's not, he's not making this up. I mean, this is, this is omnipresent, but it's not present in scripture. I mean, how, how does God cause, how does God cause grass on the, on the earth? Meditation on the earth. He doesn't like magically put it on the earth. He calls it for God causes the vegetation by allowing the earth to produce it. You know, so, so you see, in a way, you could say that God's causing the vegetation is His reception of the vegetation from the earth and that those, that's how, that's how God, and that's the only way to think of causality as generous. So this reminds me this point reminds me a lot of Aragena. And you're argument about the complete interpenetivity, interpenetivity of, right, of, of, from the low and from, yeah, yeah. And then the receptivity and the giving, right? And every, even the most, every moment of general, generation and generativity and generosity and those are all related terms, right, has to have a corresponding moment. And I'm not using this in the time sense. I'm using it closest is in phenomenology. I have to have a moment of receptivity. And so in Aragena, you have this complete interpenetration of the emanation and the emergence. Like it's not, it's, it's the polarity. It's never the poles, right? It's all the way through. That's right. That's right. Yeah. And, and you're right. I mean, just to, I mean, then you realize, I mean, you know, to, to, to, to be as to receive as to give is to be again. And, and life is a deepening of, of these relationships of love. And what you want to say is then that, that every causal event in the cosmos, insofar as it's productive at all. And if it weren't productive, we wouldn't use the language of causality. In too far as it's productive at all, it's, it's an expression of the original causal generosity at the root of things. Yeah. Yeah. And that's, and that's why you can then interpret, you know, Aristotle's or, this is, you know, Dionysius and the neo-potonic, I mean, Protonius does this. Yes. Already in, I mean, but, but, but you know, they, they really do bring together Plato and Aristotle. You realize that each of the four causes can be interpreted as an expression of the or cause, which is the good. Yes. And, and these two figures come together. Then you see, because I also, when I think this, this argument to be made here, but I'll just express it intuitively. Sure. I also think of the good as the or cause like this through line, right? Not the, not the through line, but the continual keeping of the promise of the through line is good of intelligibility, right? That intelligibility presupposes that the next aspect won't fall off into cacophony or chaos, right? That, that, that, that, no matter, no matter how we unpack reality, right? Intelligibility just just unpacks with it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Do something. And then that means that part of thinking is, is trusting in this way and, and being open to the discovery. I mean, and that's the thing, you know, and here we get to wonder. Yes. But, but, but this is why, this is why you already need to know in some respect in order to be properly surprised by what's new.


Final Reflections And Conclusion

The episode concludes with final reflections from Dr. Vervaeke, Schindler, and Lowry, offering listeners a chance to ponder the insights shared throughout the conversation. (50:30)

Yes. Yes. And, and so, so that there's a, there's a kind of, you know, Heraclitus had said this, you know, at the origin of philosophy that, that unless you expect the unexpected, yes, you won't be, you won't be surprised by, you won't, you won't notice it. And, and that has a lot to do with beauty. Beauty is something that is in some way unexpected, but nevertheless immediately discloses its intelligibility. It's sort of surprising. Like, there's, sorry, talks about this in her book on beauty. You see the beautiful tree. I didn't realize trees could be like that, but it doesn't mean that it shatters all your understanding of it somehow weaves back and then reconstitutes your understanding of trees, right? It's this, it's this, it's this. Who's the author? Who's the author? Ellen, sorry. She has a here it is. Wow, that's convenient. I hear it is. It's called on beauty and being just Ellen, sorry. Wow. Yeah. Okay. Again, one of these little thin books that's again. And that idea, you know, the beauty is isn't horrifying, in commensurable, in something that is just unintelligible, it unfolds and yet it gathers everything that has led up to that moment, but not in an inferential way. It's this weird insight we can picture like it, you know, and this is why Plato was so invested with this metaphor of an amnesus. It's somehow like, well, it's like we're simultaneously discovering and remembering at the same time. Right. Yeah. And I mean, it's hard to, in one respect, it's hard to figure out what that could possibly mean. It seems like a paradox in the contradiction even. But in another respect, we have experiences of it all the time. Yes. I mean, and intuitively, you can kind of sort of see that it makes perfect sense. People say the same thing. I mean, so when we do the, for example, when we do the circling into deal logos workshops, people say this reliably. I discovered a kind of intimacy. I didn't know existed that I've always been looking for. And they don't realize the paradox of what they're saying. Yeah, right, right, right. Yeah. And that's, and it is, I mean, the fact of the matter is if you, if you, if you, uh, uh, neglect either side of that, that it really is a discovery. So there really is an encounter with something new. Yes. But it's not new in a kind of banal empirical sense. It actually is, is a novelty that you recognize was always present. Yeah. Was already there. And both sides of that, however much intention they are that they need to be preserved for the whole experience. I think, I think that means that wonder is deeply bound up with insight because that's, that's the machinery of insight, right? The machine insight is always in ventil. Yeah. You, you, you see the, you see the aspect that discloses something that was always there, but which is absolutely novel to you because you get the flash. So, but, uh, so let's hold on to that. That's wonder. But before we get into gender, like, I want to just, because you, it was, there was a passage when I was reading, I used to, that I just stopped and I was doing Lexi on it too. You just reverberated and I made notes and I was thinking about how could, how could we turn this into a practice? But he talks about, and then you did a translation of it in your book, which is like a much more literal and therefore thankfully a much better translation. But it's this idea and this is where I want to get back to the, that weaving of the horizontal vertical. It's about, right? It's about, um, when you have this model, uh, because, uh, he talks about, he, he, he, he, he, he talks about, you know, the, the, the, the, the level we have that draws us upward, right? The level of, and then the horizontal level of that, which accompanies us, right? And then the downward level, uh, right, that which, and what's interesting, and I think you make a very good point. And I think this is one of the great gifts of Christian Neoplitism, is it, it takes the emphasis off just the ascent, um, as being the only thing that is the part of realization in both senses of work. But no, it's actually this, this, this, this, that's actually love, and all of those dimensions matter. I just wanted to, again, because we're talking about weaving the vertical and the horizontal together. Yeah. Yeah, no, and it, and it does all that without attenuating the, the ascent of aros. I mean, so, you have this, but, but it's, I mean, it's this, you know, and, and the question arises, uh, that's very clear and explicit in, in Dionysius. And so you wonder, well, is this the Christian difference that, that has the incarnational entry into, uh, the, the, the world and into the flesh and into the finite and so forth. But, but you realize once, once you see it in Dionysius, you go back and you see, well, wait a minute, this is already in a way in Plato and it's already botanist. I mean, in a way, it's a novelty, but it's a novelty that, that brings out something that was already present, you know, just to recapitulate that theme. It's, it's that, that dimension is pretty strike. That is generous. And I think there are you to say, this is a sensation amongst Christians to always make Christian Neil Greatness of a sort of, you know, a one up or something like that over the tradition. I agree with you. I, I, I tend to think that, um, but I'm influenced by you so unbiased. I mean, it's pretty, it's pretty good for your reason. I think Plato was very careful to try and counterbalance the up and down. Yeah. Yeah. So, and again, it's one of those things. It's on the surface. It doesn't seem like he is, but, but, but then you get these weird notes that don't make sense. But once you actually accept that as the, the interpretive key, then, then suddenly all these otherwise odd notes just fall right into place. Yeah. I mean, I think, I think Plato in, I mean, I think the finest has it, but I think he is skewed because of his understanding of the, the bottom as evil inherently evil. Yeah. Very problematic. That complicates things. Yeah. So I, but I'm wondering, I'm, now, can we bring it, can we bring it into the phenomenology and this will start to layer with, with, with wondering? So there's a, I mean, there's a, there's a transcendence up. That's very, like, that's even what the word going up over the mountain kind of thing, right? Right. But Urso Goodenough has talked about a transcendence into, which to me, it's very much like this. Yeah. And other people they don't use the word transcendence, but they're trying to do something that has almost an axiological as much axiological input. They talk about grounding grounded things. And so I'm trying to, I'm trying to get people to see, but wait, we're not just talking abstract. You have these movements, you have these movements of spirited, right? You know, you know what this feels like. But I think Urso Goodenough, like when you really say transcend into something, it was that and then, and then there's that other sense of, no, there's, you want to almost say transcendence downward, right? But that sounds weird. But yeah, I'm trying to, I'm trying to get, I'm trying to get people to remember in the deep sense of Satih, remember that, no, no, you know what we're talking about. You know what these, what these feel like. Yeah, no, I mean, that's, that's one can get very concrete, you know, there's, there's a kind of an ecstatic sense of being lifted out of yourself. But I mean, it's also the case in doing a task. You know, I remember having a conversation because I was sort of really kind of tortured by some of these questions when I was in graduate school. And I spoke to my mentor, Eric Pearl, who's very much my mentor. Me, graduate school. He's, he's, he's extraordinary. And, and he often, he's one of the best books. But when people would say recommend an introduction to Neil Platonism, I say, you get closely offered him. That's, that's exactly, I do the same. But I have to say, hearing it in class is, is reading it is not the same thing. Yeah, but anyway, I asked him once about that. You know, and, and, you know, he, he basically, he made some comment about, he's never so the most philosophical act that he experiences, you know, changing his baby's diaper. You know, and I mean, you think about there, talk about, you know, I mean, in a way, it seems like the opposite. And, you know, he was being provocative and saying it. But what he meant was, you know, there, there's a sense in which you, you really are brought out of yourself. Yes. In a, in a profoundly concrete way that, that, um, anchors and, and, and renders concrete, the ecstatic transcendent that can, you know, without such a grounding can actually become a kind of self-eluded. Yes. I'm transcending myself, but what I'm really doing is, is looking at my belly button, you know, um, uh, and, and, and being at the inside myself kind of oblivious to the world. And that's, of course, an illusion. Yeah. Yeah. Spiritual bypassing. Yeah. I mean, so for me, you know, that was, and it was about this transcending into feel to it. Like, in the form, and I, like, I feel like I'm reciprocally opening with the world and, and we're in partnership together. It has this and it's a, and if anybody says, well, that's not as profound as this, I'll just say no, I don't think so. I've, I've also had, you know, this kind of mystical experience, but I've also had this kind of, it's very good profoundly good at, so, you know, like, synced to the depths, I don't know what to do with it. Um, Can I, can I just connect all this also with, with the experience of beauty? I find you, you really do get all of these dimensions. Oh, experience of beauty that I, well, I, you know, I, I was marveling at that the other day that, you know, when, when, when you, when you experience something beautiful, do, do, um, does it bring you out of yourself into the thing? Or does it send you into your own depths? And I realize the answer is yes. Yes. Yes. You know, I get, I get, I get, I get, I get that. I get this, I get this, I get this deep, reciprocal opening, but I also, I also get, I get a, I get a, I don't know, it's all like, well, it's a wonders, how did this emerge? How could this have come? And then I also get often, uh, an ecstatic thing is, well, what is like, when you like, in the right, and I'm really trying to get on the plate on this, what is this signified? What is this, what is this, a living image of, what, like, what is this plug into beyond itself? Yeah. You know, like, like, like in the symposium, right? Yeah. Yeah. Great. Great. Great. Yeah. Well, that's a tough question. Um, um, I don't know. I get all of them, typically. Yeah. Yeah. In, in, in, like, in a very, like, in, when I can counter profound beauty, what's really interesting is when that beauty is in a person, because all of those dimensions, because, and phenomenologically, you can pick it up, and I don't mean anything graphic or distorting about it, but, you know, if it's, for example, I find my partner beautiful, of course, like, this reaches down into my embodiment, you know, profound. Right. That's right. But, right. Then there's also, there's a disclosure of her mystery, which is horizontal, but then there's an also, she is one of my profoundest icon. I don't want to say that. How does icon, what I mean when I try to talk about beauty per se? Yeah. No, and, and you know that, I mean, that's the thing. You know, the difference between responding to, um, beauty of a person in a purely bodily way. I mean, we know what that, what that is like. Um, and then the real, you know, that's, that's as one, one of my students, undergraduate students, explain that that's the difference between some saying that someone is beautiful and saying that that person is hot. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But, but what's odd is that you wouldn't say then, thinking, experiencing the person is beautiful in a way, um, neglects the body. No, quite contrary. I mean, that's the thing that's extraordinary is, is actually, it's simultaneously much more, you know, you'd say, well, is it a spiritual experience or is it a bodily experience? And you, you just can't you can't distinguish them. They become so deeply into what I would say it's simultaneously a spiritual experience and an embodied experience. And I'm trying to hear this in a Hegelian manner. It's also a social experience of the typical recognition that is a profoundly important thing to a rounding of rationality of normativity. Like all of that is in front. One. Yeah. Right. And that's why that's why I think it's important to see beauty as, you know, I think it's the most comprehensive of all these dimensions and that the experience of beauty therefore sort of opens up the context in within which then you have your distinct, uh, acts of intellect and will. I just realized I don't have my power apart and we're gonna lose. I'm just gonna pause for one sec. Okay. So sorry for that little glitch back. And I think this is a very good opportunity. For me, I mean, the problem is I've been talking to David. I've been talking to you about your essence. So that's been sort of back and forth trying to, but I definitely don't want to suddenly startle Ken in the headlights or anything like that. But I would like to open things up. I mean, a general question is what might this kind of, I think this is we're getting into genuine deal logos. I feel like the conversation is taking on a life of its own and the insights are sparking back and forth. But what would this kind of deal logos mean to a seeker as you describe yourself? Hmm. I, I, it's so difficult to put into words the kind of thing that I experienced over the last hour listening to this, right? Because it felt as if I was moving through this space, you know, where as you were both speaking these, these kinds of, you know, I don't like to use the word machine, but it almost, it's like this, these, these, like living things, right, would come together and, and, and play in a way that I've had many times before, but like the continual emphasis on the grounding into embodiment was really, I felt, I felt it really profoundly because as I was listening, I was trying to do that. I was trying to do all of it as, as it was happening. And, and that, I think the, the key moment for me where that I felt like, Oh, okay, here's where I can really hold on to it, was this trusting to the through line of intelligibility, right? Trusting that. It will continue to lay itself out to me, even though, right, it's almost like it was happening, it's happening so, so fast and I don't have the context to hold it all, right? So it's like, I see the things come up and then I see them go by and I have to let them go. But to trust that it's going to keep, it's going to keep going in a way that is, that is, that is not some kind of flight. That's one of the helpful things about the organic metaphor is that, you know, a mechanical thing, it's either there or gone, you know, but, but when you, when you begin to think of thinking in terms of a richer sense of causality and relationship and involved trust and love and these kinds of things in organic metaphors, you realize you can come to a certain insight that you yourself are not fully capable of articulating, but it's there and it stays with you and it takes and over time begins to unfold. I have that experience very frequently that, that thoughts that have been there in this kind of, in the back of my mind will just suddenly unfold a new dimension of their own, you know, sort of on their own, from their own resources in a way. It's, it's, it's, it gives you, I think even that just gives you a special insight into the nature of the human spirit. I think that's well said. And for me, I've been arguing that that, that that spirit we find in the guts of our insight and intuition and and inference, right, is, it, it, it, I think it shares the same grammar with reality. Yeah, but I mean, I, and that sounds like a hallmark of a cartoon, but I have lots of talks out there where I have on-feeders and very careful scientific and philosophical argument. Can I want it to also get your feedback because what you just said was tremendously helpful? First of all, I heard what you're saying and you're able to something, but also constantly bringing this into the phenomenology and getting ways in which you can imagine an act that seemed to be helpful in a way. So that you're not in vigorously, so that's good to know. And then I wanted to know, so there's one sense in which this whole thing has been a proper appreciation and apply to Heidegger's critique of onto theology about God is the greatest thing. Did you find that? Because I'm not just asking to draw, to draw something, because when we were doing that, you were moving around quite a bit, and Heidegger times quite, what was happening for you when we were talking about that? Yeah. I think that kind of auntyc view of God as the greatest thing is something that I've struggled with a lot. Because like, as you both referred to, it's so pervasive and it was fundamental to me for a long time. And then there's been different points at which I am more or less feel as I'm floating as I try to let that go. But I find that I'm more torn apart if I try to hold on to it. And so over the past while that has been distanced for me a little bit conceptually, but trying to find how to bring it down and not have the attempt to engage with the ground of being as just kind of being this, trying to bring it down into all of, into the horizontal is it's harder. It's harder. And so I think making those really kind of explicit ties, I mean, a lot of it, I just listened to your talk on leveling up from Greg Enriquez conference. Yeah. And that was really helpful for me in the background to kind of get this sense of how we're talking about two kind of superimposed, this grammar of intelligibility, correspondence between the mind and reality. I think there was just a lot of that happening for me in a way that, and it was so perfect that you, the Eric Pearl's quip of the most philosophical thing he does is change his baby's diaper, you know, because, because for me, I'm in this place where I have, you know, I have my first child and I'm playing with her and I'm like, well, specifically, I want to go and read your book, Freedom from Reality, right? I want to go and read that book. And but here I am playing with my daughter. And it's this continual, right? Like, there's a time there's a place. Yeah. Yeah. And so, and so, yeah, I don't know if that, if that does justice, but it's good. It's very good. Like, I, you were very generous and you said, like, you want me here. And I said, yes, I really do want you here. And it may have seemed like I didn't mean that in a way that conversation was just rolling. But and I don't want you to be, I don't want you to be the audience. I'm hoping you'll be more like the Greek chorus. I'm hoping that you'll do much more. And because I want to know how and why this will land with people that are like you intelligent, good faith seekers, you're climbing Mount Sophia as you put it. And I want to make sure, and I sent from David that he goes to that what we're doing when we do this stuff that's conceptual philosophical. I don't know what you were to put on it because it sounds that candid. But anyways, when we're doing that, it's I don't want it to lose and Plato didn't want it to lose. And Dionysus doesn't want it to lose touch with the transformation of, you know, individual and collective life. I think that for me that you like so I hope you feel that my questions are welcoming you into this conversation and the values of that. That's all I'm appreciating. Yeah, no, I'd like to echo that. And also, you know, that the that the the speculations are meant to, I mean, in a way that, you know, that it's precisely the point of it is to enter more deeply into reality, not to find some sort of escape. But you know, the other thing is that that that for me is very important is to recognize that that, you know, these criticisms of ontotheology and respect for what what Heidegger does that doesn't imply that an abandonment of faith. You know, I think for a lot of people that seeking means in order to be a real seeker, it means you have to let God go. And you know, that that actually might be a moment at some point, but but it's not the case that adhering to God means you can't be a seeker or vice versa that that in fact, I mean, to the contrary. And that's that's, you know, Augustine had some line about that that, you know, the more we understand about God, the more we realize how much, you know, it's the standard thing. You realize there's infinitely more you're increasingly aware of how far you are away from it, how how infinite the the depths of what there is still to understand. It never comes to an end. Yeah, I found that to be so true. And but it's the trusting to that through line, I think, that is what's allowed that to be true for me is that like, I think one of the turning points for me was realizing that all truth is God's truth. But to go back to what you were saying, John, and first of all, thank you very much. That's that's kind of you. And you know, I I think there's something about the posture that you're both doing this with, that there's never a question as to whether or not you're wanting to go more deeply into reality. Like I've never I've never questioned as as in both of your work, I've never questioned whether or not this is actually going to make me better at my at my day to day job of caring for patients or at my, you know, at the at the moment of caring for my child, right? It's it's the desire to go read the book. It's actually the book itself that turns me back to not go read the book. And and so I think that is so deeply affirming because I think for so long part of what makes me who I am is who my parents were and my parents had a tremendous commitment to follow what they thought was the good. And but but they didn't have resource that took them to a place that was actually helpful. And so I think I think so many of us have been yearning for and looking for something that we can sink our teeth into that will actually, you know, take us into the depths of reality, but in a way that, you know, we can actually still live our lives. We can still have jobs that are that are just kind of doing normal things and raise families, but still have something meaningful that's not just kind of hand-wavy. Yeah. Well, that's really fundamentally important to me. Yeah, no, thank you for that, Ken. That that really was inspiring for me. Yeah, I because of my natural social phobia, I am very easily tempted to become a planet. And then I can follow kind of spiritual bypass and that's also I think ultimately vicious. So one of the reasons why I've been trying to reach out and make connection both ways to similar minded thinkers, the theater, and to similarly seeking people or to them is precisely because I think making a connection is what in fact part of what I'm going to argue is. It's even more urgent now than it was even five weeks ago. And now in a place, I think these machines, and I won't talk about that right now, but I'm going to do that in the USA, the video I said, but I think this is maybe one of the greatest kairas that humanity is going to face. That is my steady inclusion about this. I think both the people who are making the prophecies of the room and the people who are promising under the utopia are off for me, because they usually are. But I don't think this is I think this is very, very significant. This is going to represent a challenge to us in a really profound way. And so I think one of the best things we can offer is a way of bringing the profundity of, and Socrates would have wanted this, of bringing the profundity of the platonic tradition into the war. We have to. The urgency for that is extreme now. That's what I think. I'm actually going to need to go here. But that was such a great final statement there. Again, inspiring. I think this is an important work. The world's, yeah, well, I don't want to. We're grateful for what you're doing, John. Well, I'm grateful for your work, and I'm grateful for our friendship all and for Ken for you linking this and making this happen and affording it and being in the right context. So I'm just going to end by saying thank you both very much. And of course, we're all going to talk again back as we said. Very good. Very good. Thank you.


Great! You’ve successfully signed up.

Welcome back! You've successfully signed in.

You've successfully subscribed to Wisdom In a Nutshell.

Success! Check your email for magic link to sign-in.

Success! Your billing info has been updated.

Your billing was not updated.