Speaker A
does zen let's say formulate the infinite as relational to the finite yes and so can enter into Emptiness is form form is emptiness exactly explicitly so I mean I I know this is going to sound weird but then why isn't
Jonathan Pageau hosts John Vervaeke and Jordan Hall to discuss faith, participatory knowing, Zen and Christianity, and ritual cognition, previewing Vervaeke's upcoming course.
Key Takeaways
- Ritual may constitute a genuine mode of knowing that deserves cognitive analysis.
- Faith is better understood as participatory trust than as unsupported belief.
- The Christian incarnation offers a distinctive model of relationship with the infinite.
- Transformation through suffering and engagement is central to the spiritual life.
- Interreligious dialogue is most fruitful when it aims at mutual transformation.
What the video covers
- Opens with Jordan Hall's question about whether the infinite cares about individuals, framed through Zen and Christian perspectives on the sacred.
- Pageau introduces an upcoming class by John Vervaeke on cognitive science and ritual, to be offered through The Symbolic World.
- Vervaeke explains his focus: the cognitive dimension of ritual, including whether ritual is a way of knowing and how the imaginal relates to rationality.
- The conversation examines faith (pistis), distinguishing belief as unsupported propositional assertion from trust as an empirically grounded judgment and from a deeper participatory trust.
- Discussion of primordial presuppositions that cannot be doubted without invoking them, drawing on Alvin Plantinga's epistemology.
- Explores the Christian notion of the hypostatic union and the incarnate Logos as a distinct form of relationality with the divine.
- Engages Maximus the Confessor and apophatic themes such as God as being and non-being.
- Considers suffering and transformation as central to engagement with reality, contrasting escape from suffering with maturing through it.
- Addresses agape versus conditional love, referencing Spinoza and the idea that genuine love should not depend on being loved in return.
- Ends with reflections on the Church as embodied community that makes the sacred present, and on dialogue as mutually transformative.
Chapters
- 00:00Zen, the Infinite, and Whether It Cares
- 05:00Introducing the Symbolic World and the Cognitive Science Class
- 15:00Vervaeke on Ritual as a Way of Knowing
- 25:00Faith, Belief, and Trust Distinguished
- 40:00Primordial Presuppositions and Plantinga
- 55:00The Hypostatic Union and Incarnate Relationality
- 71:40Suffering, Transformation, and Maximus the Confessor
- 90:00Agape, Love, and the Church as Embodied Community
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
why don't people pray in Zen um they do um so I I happen to know is Zen roshi and he he he prays and he chants and so forth what is what is um what's the infinite like does it have a sense of
Speaker A
humor I'm I'm sorry Jordan you're gonna have to be more precise in what you mean by that question well you know one of the things of something that has a character relationship is that it has a character relationship and so the
Speaker A
question is something like um well okay let me answer that let me answer that first uh okay so you know this is shellenberg who's an atheist but says what we're talking about we're talking about sacred is uh you know it's
Speaker A
ultimately real and again not in the neutral sense in the antinormative I want to participate in it so that's a relationship term I want to participate in it I want to conform to it I want to reciprocally open I want to be realized
Speaker A
by it as I realize it all of that secondly it's ultimately orienting like people reorient towards it right and it's ultimately transformative it causes you know this deep deep the deepest possible transformation from being entric to being profoundly reality
Speaker A
Centric but does it care about you that's the question does it care about you why does that matter to you that's a [Music] question this is Jonathan Pedro welcome to the symbolic world [Applause] [Music] so hello everyone I am here with Jordan
Speaker A
Hall and John REI all of you know them very well I am really excited and a little uh befuddled and we're wondering what's going to happen because John BVI wrote both of us said I watch our your conversation together and I really would
Speaker A
like to have a a discussion of the three of us and so I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what it is that he's scheming and what's going on in his mind but but before we start we're making an
Speaker A
announcement today in a few weeks we'll put the links in the description that you can go see on our website but in a few weeks uh John will be teaching a class on cognitive science and ritual for the symbolic world and so he's going
Speaker A
to go into his own ideas and his own research and all all the way that he connects his study into in in cognitive science with ritual uh and then in the last episode he's gonna he's going to go
Speaker A
through the theory and then the last episode we'll have a discussion together and so that will be of course live like the other classes you can join live you can also buy the class and watch it later if you if you don't have time to
Speaker A
join live but we'll have q&as and everything the same way we're doing our our uh our other classes so uh so uh before we start maybe John you can tell us give us a little something about about the Cog side class yeah so I uh
Speaker A
first of all uh deeply appreciative of being here um and also very appreciative of you inviting me to uh teach on the symbolic world I'm very excited about this especially the fact that it'll at least have a diolog culmination I think
Speaker A
that's just wonderful goes with a lot of things that I believe in and stand for so um there's lots of theories of ritual out there um but um there's very little theory of ritual that actually covers what you might call the cognitive
Speaker A
dimension of ritual uh so I'm not going to be offering that would be pretentious and hubristic to say I'm going to give you a comprehensive account to Ritual I mean there are socioeconomic there are historical there are cultural there are
Speaker A
philosophical there are theological aspects of ritual and I'm not here to comment on them and I'm not here to deny that they exist or that they're important all I'm saying is there has been a missing Dimension a lot in a lot
Speaker A
of the discussion of ritual which is the cognition of ritual is ritual a way of knowing for example is is that a reasonable question to ask and there are and there's a lot of work on that and I
Speaker A
want to bring all the work I've done on the imaginal the relationship between the imaginal and the rational and the reasonable and the relationship you know what it is what what kind of knowing are we talking about and is there is there a
Speaker A
rationality to Ritual those are all the things uh we're going to be talking about and um the the quick answer is yes there is cognition in ritual and it's a very powerful and important form of ritual and it's bound up very deeply
Speaker A
with I think a a more proper understanding of what we mean mean by rational if what we mean by rational isn't merely logical but being reasonable in a much more comprehensive sense all right well we are definitely looking forward to that so Jordan uh
Speaker A
it's good to see you and uh we want to know I mean I want to know what it is in our conversation John that that SP sparked this discussion so you have to start us off well first of all be you know I'm going
Speaker A
to do a few things that'll be provocative but you know um as as is my want uh but uh obviously I'm not doing anything ridiculous like attempting a uh reputation I loved the conversation I love both of you I consider you friends
Speaker A
that I respect and have a lot of affection for um and so it was like yeah but what about this what about this kind of issue it wasn't like I think you're it's not that okay so um and and and I
Speaker A
think it's fair to say there was a lot of John Veri running through the conversation so I'm I I'm not I don't want to be um ungracious or anything like that so I I just want to frame very
Speaker A
quickly where I'm coming from and what I'm trying to do here I'm trying to be Socratic I I'm not trying to be a skep dart okay so so I'll if I could I'll lay what I heard what I'm and of course you you'll
Speaker A
be free to correct me when I'm done what I thought I heard around a central thing I want to talk about we don't have to stick on that topic this is just where but this is what brought me in do I want
Speaker A
to talk to you to about it right so there was a discussion of uh pistus as Faith um and then there was there was very much um moves I agree with like moving it off belief at least in the
Speaker A
sense of asserting propositions without evidence or argument you you both said something along those lines and then there was there was a movement of to trust and then um I I would want to I would have wanted to slow down a little
Speaker A
bit there uh because the problem with the word trust is it's very equivocal there's two different meanings of trust uh there's one meaning of trust is based on empirical like observation and inference I come to a conclusion about
Speaker A
the probability of somebody's competence so I trust that if I give this to Peter he'll do a good job that's not particularly relevant to your conversation in any important fashion because that's just how we sort of get about the world uh where we can't
Speaker A
operate with certainty which is like everywhere then you mean a so a I just want to make clear that that's not what we're talking about to my mind and then you moved to something which was deeper I'm going to use a little bit of
Speaker A
my own language and we can play with it if you don't like it uh but it was something like because you were trying to draw to my mind you were trying to draw together Notions of participatory knowing because that was invoked a lot
Speaker A
um and it's something like you know participation in sort of primordial presuppositions there are these are presuppositions that you can't get outside of you they they are presupposed was in the very Act of trying to make sense uh make judgments about what's
Speaker A
intelligible Etc and so like the they're primordial in that sense to doubt them would be to invoke them to try and doubt them kind of thing um and so although you can't give an argument for them there is no place you can stand to call
Speaker A
them seriously into question and this is this is a good model by the way it's not unique to me or to both of you Alvin plantinga has who's an important Christian philosopher has a very similar kind of you know a presupposition model
Speaker A
of what's going on and I'm a little bit different than him on this but so it that that's cool so so far so good um I think everybody's nodding and smiling so but then so a couple issues came up
Speaker A
to me well one is okay that's fair uh but and for me that's great because that sort of grounds the philosophical Silk Road really wonderfully because we it means you know you know that we're not all automatically we can't dismiss faith
Speaker A
we we're we're bound at this level I think Jordan you even said you know even the atheist has to have this kind of faith in some sense you said something to to that degree and and that's a great
Speaker A
strength but it also opens up this question uh that means at that level of the argument that both the Buddhist and the Christian have equal Faith because if they equally have right a set of primordial presuppositions that makes
Speaker A
the world fundamentally intelligible to them in a way in which they can profoundly participate they both have faith um this is why I think it's a philosophical soak Road move now what I when I what I then Wonder so again
Speaker A
that's how I'm posing it to you it seems to me you need an additional argument for to for talking about faith in the specific Christian content because that Faith doesn't follow from the argument you gave because the argument you gave is a is a
Speaker A
properly pluralistic argument okay now there's potential moves available to you and I'll I'll lay them out how I see them and what I find problematic about them and then I'll stop talking okay uh so one you move you can make is to to
Speaker A
say something well like mean you know uh well Christianity makes the most sense or something like that that's problematic um I'm not going to repeat my thousand arguments and Publications and videos about intelligibility grounds and relevance realization and relevance
Speaker A
realization is properly pluralistic right you you you can't in an we just P published a paper on this you can't give an there's no way to give an AI formalization of relevance realization that allows you to say this is the
Speaker A
optimal final version of relevance realization relevance realization is non-computational to put it in in a phrase and that's really important because that GR grounds meaning in life that grounds a lot of the stuff we're talking about but that also commits you
Speaker A
to certain consequences of that now what you could do um and you could make use of James filler I'm talking to him tomorrow by the way uh and he's got a second book out coming where he's got the critique of substance ontology so
Speaker A
I'm looking forward to that and then you could say oh well what we could do is we could make a move where say you could say intelligibility or information are properly relational uh and therefore we should go to a a a
Speaker A
worldview I'll I'm trying to use a neutral term here um that gives the most proper place to U relationality and doesn't commit to like a substance ontology or something like that and then James as you know maps that into the
Speaker A
Trinity the Trinity is the most powerful symbol according to James of pure relationality and therefore it's a great symbol for Ultimate Reality and that's why it makes the most sense and it seemed to me that arguments Al along
Speaker A
those lines were were were being made um and you know push back when I'm done and we're here as friends um but then the the concern that I had with that is well the the problem with that is um and
Speaker A
we'll see what James says about this I have a critique of James um which is his main argument to cut it short and I won't make the argument I'll just give you the conclusion is you can't get relations out of Rada you can't there's
Speaker A
not given if you start with things and sub substances in the real statian terms you can't get relations out of that and if you can't get relations you can't get intelligibility etc etc that's the core argument that he makes the problem is
Speaker A
there's an exactly symmetrical argument and Jonathan will probably recognize this this is a neoplatonic argument you also can't get uh Rel out of pure relations you can't get the arguments are exactly symmetrical so pure relationality doesn't mean at the bottom
Speaker A
there's relations pure relationality is is means at the bottom there is that that is below both relations and relata and makes them both possible and of course this is the neoplatonic one right it's not a relation it's not a relata it's
Speaker A
what makes relations and relata possible or it's something like Zen shata which is okay now what does that mean for the mapping onto the Trinity because I could say well Zen does a really good job because Zen prioritizes
Speaker A
nonduality and that's the central message not the trinitarian na nature of relationality and this goes into the deeper argument this is a mapping function and the problem with mapping functions is that reality is combinatorially explosive and there is
Speaker A
no perfect map what kind of map do you want do you want a contour map do you want geographical map do you want a political map do you want a thermal map it depends pragmatically on the goal you're trying to solve so there is no
Speaker A
way of saying that's the absolute best map of reality it can't work now you may think and I and I'm I'm going to use all these terms with deep respect so I'm not being dismissive okay but you say well I can
Speaker A
map Yahweh the god of Israel and Jesus of Nazareth and the spirit of Pentecost which I take to be at least one way of understanding the Trinity there's a mapping going on there and it's like I think that's great I think James is book
Speaker A
is great but the neoplatonists have a way of mapping and there's other maps and you there's no there's no there's nowh to stand to say this is the absolute right map and so we keep coming back to we keep coming back to a proper
Speaker A
pluralism for which I don't like I don't see why you come to to a particular faith in right as opposed to just having and I sorry this sounds silly having faith in faith itself and I don't believe that you you obviously know that
Speaker A
but do you understand what the gist of the argument is because there was the reason why this matters because it has existential import because and you know and Jordan matters to me a lot right Jordan was talking about what led him
Speaker A
into Christianity not what led him into faith and that's what I was trying to understand right so I think it's fair to me to bring up this set of problems okay how is that was that okay I think I mean I think I definitely
Speaker A
understand the different arguments I know I think Jordan you you should have the you should start okay um I'm I'm mindful of the concern Jonathan you mentioned earlier um johnan mentioned that he's he's concerned that when he and I talk it may be um yeah maybe too
Speaker A
too AB to high level and I I think it's fair to say that we added REI into the conversation and where he's actually bringing a a point that is exact very very precise um so I think maybe the the
Speaker A
thing do say say forgive me there's nothing there's nothing I can do about the fact that this may be at the borders of intelligibility um so let's see yes this notion that there can be no map that is the
Speaker A
funny is the ultimate map is actually the same as the critique I have of metamodernism yeah Y and so the answer is something like is there something that is more fundamental than mapping that is primordial in the sense that it
Speaker A
is prior to all possible Maps um which is not itself defined as a as a map but is a protom map and it's it's the process whereby maps are formed at all and constraints and defines all possible Maps mhm if if such a thing we're a
Speaker A
we're able to enter into relationship with it by the way and I'll Point number two then that's the thing right that's the thing that we would ultimately have to be looking at okay Roman numeral number two in this kind of a
Speaker A
conversation it's beautiful that all three of us are this won't be controversial but in this kind of a conversation we have to be very particular about the fact that we cannot bias any particular quality of relationship meaning in in
Speaker A
this specifically intelligence or semantics or cognition narrowly understood but actually be saying what we're seeking to do is to enter into relationship with that thing which is primordial or prior to all possible maps with the wholeness of our capacity to
Speaker A
enter into relationship at all and maybe then just to add that the third piece and I really do think it was you who added this piece to a conversation we had years ago oh oh yes I can say it in way it's definitely
Speaker A
yours which is reciprocal opening yes meaning that this is also an alive relationship that in entering into this quality of holistic relationship with this primordial um both we and our capacity too are in a continuous reciprocal opening and so notice what's happening
Speaker A
in all this right um so that is what I think Christianity is okay uh uh um yeah uh and so so I mean I I'm I'm like there's two ways in which you could be meaning that one is
Speaker A
Christianity is that and so is uh you know Pro and let's play fair we're not going to compare good Christians to bad Buddhists or some some silly we're going to say the best of a of a Christian the
Speaker A
best of a Buddhist we'll play we'll play fair it seems to me that I can say everything you just said the reciprocal opening a a transformative relationship to ultimate relationality the one in neoplatonism or shata that makes all relationality
Speaker A
possible that is also available to the the the the true the good faith Buddhist the good faith Dost the good faith neoplatonist and of course the trick here of course is filler relies on neoplatonism even to make his argument
Speaker A
right I'm going to pause for a moment I feel like there's something has to happen at the level of dialogos for this to work properly oh I hope I'm not being stultifying I'm not trying to be no no
Speaker A
the opposite I think that there's something like to be able to respond to this properly we we we have to come into a quality of communion that affords a vastly greater capacity than we have as individuals and have yet
Speaker A
cultivated good I'm open to that like I said I'm not here to refute things that's not my that's not what I want I want to get this cuz I want to look what I don't what I don't see in the two of
Speaker A
you let me maybe saying this will help to do what you're talking about Jordan I don't see a simplistic sort of liberal tolerance um and I mean that in a pejorative sense well you have your Christianity and I have my Buddhism or
Speaker A
what and we all just live together and that's all wonderful and a sort of relativism and you know I don't I I I I take it that's not what you're saying you're right good so we're in agreement and I want right and I and I so I'm
Speaker A
trying to say tell me how you address these issues and yet keep the depth from just just degenerating into well I like you and you like me and we like that we like each other and all that sort of
Speaker A
stuff that really doesn't uh help with what's going on in the world right now so maybe while you're Jordan while you're meditating maybe I'll throw out the things that came to my mind when you were talking John um so a few things came to to to my mind
Speaker A
one is we've talked about this uh before one is that the the map that Christianity proposes is is eschatological yes uh and it's presented in a manner that is actually not a a specific map right it's presented in in
Speaker A
with language that is mythological that that that is structural uh you know like a city with with something something which represents the top of the hierarchy son of man a a king figure something which represents the bottom of
Speaker A
the my hierarchy the the sacrificed lamb which are joined together as the light of the city and then that gives way to a world where there's balance between the natural world and the art and the human world and the artificial world and the
Speaker A
human world and and that all multiplicity can can bring its quality into that participation right so all the kings bring their Crown into the into the into the uh into the the city um and so I think that that is a one way of
Speaker A
answering the question of the of the absolute map or like the perfect map is that the the perfect map is given as something which is coming but never comes or at least doesn't come in the way that we think I mean I'm not saying
Speaker A
there isn't an eschatological moment but that eschatological moment cannot be measured by the measurements of time that we give to to time now like it's the end of time in the sense it's the purpose of time it's the end of history
Speaker A
in the sense that it's the thing toward which all things are moving um and I and I think that in terms of let's say a a map like a if we talk about the idea of of mapping reality I think that that's important to
Speaker A
always remember is that Christ is the one who came and the one who's coming and when he's coming in the end that which he will offer is a new Heaven and a new earth that is not the one that we have now
Speaker A
everything that we have now is although we don't want to say that it's it's it's it's arbitrary it's not arbitrary at all but it's a glimmer it's always a glimmer and a kind of small participation in something which which which is coming uh
Speaker A
you know and you know there are there are sometimes you can you can read There are mysterious ways in which you know for example like the Saints will talk about when you take communion you are already in the escaton
Speaker A
you're right you know but it's something which when you're in the escaton you're also not in regular time you're not in the normal time you're not in in in in the way that the world is laid out and
Speaker A
coming back from that and some ways will always relativize and make things imperfect and you know and and somewhat somewhat off from the the and so I think that that in terms of the idea of of that that Christianity offers
Speaker A
a map for reality I think we always have to remember that that that eschatology is a central part of how we understand that how the logos manifest themselves in the world because the logos is the fullness of the Loos has not yet been
Speaker A
seen the fullness of the yogos is coming it's over the hill it's come Lord Jesus right this the sense that we're calling it into being but it never uh not it doesn't it doesn't arrive in the way that we expect it right even in the book
Speaker A
of even Christ says if if you say here he is here he is you know don't listen to those who say there he is like that's not how it's going to it's going to it's going to happen um so in terms of
Speaker A
mapping that's one of the things I want to offer and the other the other part though I want to offer in terms of relationality terms of the Trinity is we always have to remember that the that the Trinity is not just relationality it
Speaker A
is one yes of course right it's it it it you always have to keep that aoria present for it to for it to to be the the so it's both the one in some ways of the neoplatonist but it also is the the
Speaker A
the fullness of of of relationality in the multiple right so it's it's those two things at the same time it it avoids it avoids the problem of gnosticism and right the problem of the of the degenerate of the degenerate uh
Speaker A
manifestations you could say right that manifestations or or or or things that proceed from the one are immediately you know uh degenerate for that for that for that reason anyway so those those are a few things I wanted to offer but it's
Speaker A
mostly Jordan you have to I think you're the you're the a lot of it was was about the things that you said so go ahead yeah well um when you said about the logos so what I was noticing
Speaker A
was perhaps the Crux precisely nice yeah um is known as the hypostatic union um because the logos incarnate affords a different quality of relationality than the logos in general yeah so if I'm Lau endeavoring deeply to come into
Speaker A
relationship with the way there's so far I can go and if I'm a neoplatonist contemplating the one there's so far I can go but John now you the Apostle John actually meets Jesus and that's a completely different kind of thing it's very different you
Speaker A
know it's it's as similar as saying my ability to know my wife by by virtue of reading her biography and by virtue of actually loving her directly and so the ability to actually enter into a human scale relationship with the logos
Speaker A
incarnate is a qualitatively different kind of thing and I think there's a lot going on there and it's the inverse and a very powerfully bound inverse of than the crucifixion and these these things are are are yoked together powerful as
Speaker A
also Jonathan mindful of of the the talk you gave at the symbolic World Conference in the son of man seeing whatever images were coming to me when you were talking then I was seeing those images coming up when John was speaking
Speaker A
earlier so I mean ultimate we're really talking about is Christ ultim we're really talking about obviously in some sense the thing that differentiates Christianity as a way of of doing this sort of thing is Christ and Christ is
Speaker A
the Incarnation the actual not just the logos as an abstraction that we can contemplate which the Greeks do at the High level and lau does at the highest level you the way the logos but the fact that there's something about the
Speaker A
particularity of the eruption of the Eternal into the chronological in a particular moment in space and time and what that does in in terms of affording our ability as in fact quite distinctly finite beings right with very limited capacity to
Speaker A
enter into relationship with the ultimate in terms of affording that what would be called the hyposthenic Union right this this paradoxical aoria that happens at the at that level of how the finite and the infinite can actually grow in that
Speaker A
relationality I I I want to properly pause here in case either one of you want to say some more because that was a lot and it was good and it was rich um I I um so um the eschatological that the the
Speaker A
map is incomplete um that is of course also not unique to Christianity uh Buddhism has mraa the coming Buddha and and there is no map so the the eschatological sense is um again found elsewhere that's just one example I can
Speaker A
give others um and so I um although I think I I hear an argument building yeah all these things are found elsewhere but you can only find all of them in sort of your One-Stop uh Enlightenment shop or
Speaker A
something that's Christianity um but maybe that's the argument that's building here we'll see if that's what we're we're working towards now the idea that the the logos um is Incarnate in a in a specific historical person well um
Speaker A
Buddha nature was present in sarta gatama um and people met him historically and that's how Buddhism was founded um and and and and so um that's not the Christian doctrine of incarnation but we that's not plain fair you can't say the Buddhists don't have
Speaker A
the they have that the the Dharma was embodied in a way right that ignited a religion right and and and so again uh that would be the the uh the case um um Jonathan I agree with you about the rejection of gnosticism and
Speaker A
many versions of neoplatonism but as filler himself argues if you properly understand neoplatonism it it it doesn't have the one and relationality are always held together in the notion of Ultimate Reality it's not the one and relationality and because it's not a
Speaker A
numerical one and it's not a substantial one it it's the Oneness of intelligibility um in that that sense so you um um so um now um You you you may say um but what I have oh I want to I want to do this very
Speaker A
carefully you may you might be saying that but in some sense you both feel that's the wrong word sorry you both sense that you have had um this personal relationship with Jesus um and I'm not saying that in a
Speaker A
dismissive fashion you understand that please okay is is is that what this is coming down to ultimately because yeah it really depends what you what you mean by that yeah yeah fair enough fair enough fair enough because I
Speaker A
I've heard versions of that that are that I wouldn't identify with let's just say uh well let me say Let me let let me help you there CU you know here's here's where here's ways in which it doesn't
Speaker A
work for me because people will say I feel the presence of Jesus and he's telling me to do X and then this person over here says I feel the presence of Jesus and he's telling me to do not X
Speaker A
and it's like oh really oh this makes no sense to me whatsoever like that kind of stuff does isn't going to track as an argument because it just doesn't line up with the with the facts okay so go ahead go ahead J yeah
Speaker A
so I don't know this about you jonan but I imagine um for example when you have an actual experience of of profound grief utterly shattering well again well beyond Maps well beyond any notion deeper than your faith a grief deeper than your
Speaker A
faith and you you notice that there's something there right you're not alone in that grief there's nothing else that you can imagine right you're beyond mind you're definitely you're beyond meditation and you as you enter into that you
Speaker A
notice that that something has qualities and a way of naming those qualities is love so that's that would be an example of what that means like when you when you really really really go to the experience of a profound relationship
Speaker A
with how loss works and the shattering of your ability to enter into uh identity at all um um you notice that non-duality is not the actual thing that's at the bottom that there's something more fundamental than that and the only way
Speaker A
we can talk about it would be the thing that is called love the same thing happens by the way from my point of view if you go all the way to the highest level but that's a little bit trickier for my in my
Speaker A
experience so can you say that last thing because I uh uh so first of all thank you for that that's uh a powerful um and Rich thing to say so I'm not um you're aware that it's deeper than
Speaker A
nonduality you're invoking you're invoking spatial metaphors which of course are transcended by non-duality so I'm trying to get out what that so I might have a sense of what you're talking about uh people talk about a a sensed presence which is neither
Speaker A
objective nor sub objective neither emanating nor emergent but deeper and that you don't know it by you don't know it by other than participating it and being it but with I don't mean in a logical identity sense like when when
Speaker A
you're very when you're deeply in love with somebody and in a goic way is that what you mean and and I again I'm not trying to do a judo move on you I'm trying to understand no I get it I mean
Speaker A
think what we're talking about here talking about doing neurosurgery um which which is perfect right this is where this is where we are by the way I mean we meaning the species right where the species is actually here we got to
Speaker A
get this figured out um there's no more you knocking beating around the bush we have to take the level of care and precision and um actual embodied love and Clarity it's necessary so let's see wow man and what I noticed is that
Speaker A
that oh okay nice so what I'm going to do is I'm going to say something and it's actually going to be Tri okay but it's it's the best thinging I can get out of my mouth right now and
Speaker A
an Endeavor to collaboratively get there I'll take it charitably Jordan I promise I'll take it charitably and and by the way I'm going to reinforce it has to this has to be three you're you're you're participating um so if we go towards the direction of Joy
Speaker A
so joy and grief being gates to this relationship um what we notice when we get to profound levels of joy is a feeling of the presence of the infinite like a proximity towards something which is of the nature of the Transcendent yet
Speaker A
in the realm of the imminent right something that is something that we are able to experience but is increasingly accelerating Beyond anything that could actually be present or contained within um experience within the finite right so we accelerate in that
Speaker A
direction and as we move in that direction what we begin to notice is that we we do not actually dissolve into that but rather are embraced by it right that's that's that's the key the key difference is that
Speaker A
the relationship between the infinite and the finite is not a mistake there's nothing about the the the way the creation is that is not good and that there's the ability for us to be in a relationship that is governed
Speaker A
by that as a fundamental is how do I say H he I can't it's not my words somebody else has to say it well I I think that the thing that comes to me when when when when you're
Speaker A
saying what you're saying is that the let's say Christianity I I believe Christianity really does uh in its highest instantiations really does have a sense that the source of reality is is non-u right that the way that we describe God as a
Speaker A
trinity is a way is a way to describe the infinite right not a way but it's a it's a manifestation of the infinite in a in a type of aoria that joins unity and multiplicity together you know St
Speaker A
Maximus says things like God is being and non-being you know yeah exactly that type of language now I think what what Jordan is bringing up which I which I think is is really important in in the vision of Christianity is that
Speaker A
Christianity deeply understands that that nonu is not is not in other it's not a Vortex that swallows the world into it right that's not something that out of that wants to call you out of being that wants to call you out of reality into
Speaker A
into into some like infinite uh uh Bliss or whatever that in that in fact what it does is that it affords all of reality in it but in a specific way right it there's a specific manner in which it it
Speaker A
makes the world exist you know and and that way is surprising at the outset because that in that way is something like self-sacrificial love yeah and that the self-sacrificial love is is the mode of existence and so Christ manifest that in the extreme he
Speaker A
manifest that in the you know in a way that is kind of almost unbearable to to to to watch but it be comes becomes an image of how it is that that we can participate in nonduality without Le
Speaker A
without escaping the world we're not escaping our desires we're not escaping our bodies we're not doing any of that stuff we're not we're not denying any of of the goodness of the world uh and what that looks like is that image I think
Speaker A
it's that image that I that I mentioned in in Revelation which is the king and the sacrifice to together M right the highest and the lowest joined together and one of them affording the other right the reason why Christ is King is
Speaker A
because he was on the cross and you know and and vice versa that image of Jesus on the cross with the sign above that says the King this is the king folks uh and I think that that that all of
Speaker A
Christianity is about that and that's why everything that Christians argue in the first centuries about the nature of Christ about preserving his Divinity preserving his Humanity you know all of these questions are about the way in which non the Transcendent is actually
Speaker A
the that which makes the the IM imminent exist and and that's the that's the balance that that Christianity brings brings about now I don't know if there are other you know I'm not I'm I'm not an expert on all world religions I don't
Speaker A
know if there are other forms that have that you know that that anchor right that that hold what I see in many other religions is is a tendency to emphasize the Escape right like we have to and Christians are by the way fallowing that
Speaker A
all the time Christians actually will tend to say things die and go to heaven like that kind of language it's it's actually profoundly not Christian it's such a it's such a habit that humans have to want to want that but when you
Speaker A
look at the even the Bible or if you look the way the the fathers talk about Christianity it is not it's not at all that type of it it isn't that Escape right it's like the Kingdom of Heaven uh
Speaker A
is not the same as Heaven it's the it's that joining together right yeah so again I'm I'm I'm actually going to be playing with uh like wooden knives right now but you're going to get I think this might get there so an
Speaker A
invitation to to break the wheel of karma uh a vow not to leave the wheel of Karm until every other conscious being sentient being has done so sentient sentient compared to an invitation to get on your cross the the the proper orientation of
Speaker A
the Transcendent with the imminent is to pour itself into it to actually so utterly love creation this yeah this is this is it so it's the the key is like man Christians get this wrong all the time um by the way can I just interject
Speaker A
in very one phrase I respect the fact that you demonstrating genuine reasonableness of entering into self-criticism so I just wanted to I just wanted to appreciate that so please go please go ahead yes I think actually in some sense
Speaker A
you may be speaking for the comments as well everybody John just said we're we're this is genuine reasonableness not just in confidence um okay let's see so it's it's the it's almost like the reverse Direction This notion of Escape versus
Speaker A
immerse right the the the the the call is not to alleviate suffering the call is actually to recognize that the world is so rich that suffering is intrinsic and meaningful something like that right that God the actual Transcendent you know you know Buddha
Speaker A
nature but in this case comes into reality and lives directly with other people and suffers in fact not just suffers but allows himself to take on the fullness of suffering not to have us Escape it but to remind us that that's actually
Speaker A
the thing okay right we are not we are not um it's not like oh man suffering was an error tell you what guys I'll give you a suffering Band-Aid so nobody ever suffers anymore that's not the thing it's rather no the way this thing is
Speaker A
supposed to work is is is you're descending into a deeper and deeper capacity to suffer because that's what engagement with reality actually is is to undergo right to undergo reality experience and to grow and to mature and so instead of dying and escaping what
Speaker A
happens is you die and you enter into even deeper capacity to enter into relationship with with a large an ever expanding reality um and this again this is the the opposite of a naive notion of non Duality which is a an elimination of
Speaker A
difference right it's actually no no it's a an embracing of difference in a deeper wholeness that produces a deeper capacity for differentiation in ongoing unfolding okay this was really good and I None of these compliments I'm giving you are fous uh so I'm trying to put a
Speaker A
couple things together you got the you this is like an extended version of the reciprocal opening that what you just did so you're acknowledging that that's good and I take it that that's what you mean by Joy the problem with when people
Speaker A
hear Joy is they just mean they think intense pleasure and that's not what we're talking about here um and of course you can forgive them for that because we have this stupid word enjoyment which just means intense pleasure uh which really messes people
Speaker A
up Okay so we've got that and we've got the idea that this was reciprocal opening can be very Jonathan was pointing to like there's a universal temptation to misunderstand misconstrue the reciprocal opening as Escape rather it's an entering into deeper and deeper relation
Speaker A
is right and that's properly agapic right because it's anagogic agapic together am I is that Landing fairly okay okay and then the idea here um is that what Christianity offers is an alternative in which onto normativity being as fundamentally good
Speaker A
not ethically good or aesthetically good or even epistemically good right beyond the true and the good and the Beautiful it's just re being is good in this in this ontological sense and and that's what I heard you saying in
Speaker A
some sense is that is that fair like you're getting sort of a reading of Genesis God looks at MH the world is good he does he's not making a moral judgment he's not making an aesthetic judgment he's not making an epistemic
Speaker A
judgment because he's God right so he's he's saying something else he's saying that being is intrinsically good qua being just by being it is good am I so that's why Escape is fundamentally wrong because if being is intrinsically good
Speaker A
seeking to escape from it is intrinsically wrong am I getting your argument correctly yeah yeah and and that's I it's interesting too about for example Christian Christian theosis like the notion of Christian theosis is you know I remember when I
Speaker A
was first interested in Orthodox Theology and I had read a lot of esoteric texts from other Traditions there was something about Christian theosis which annoyed me because it was like it wasn't the real it wasn't the full thing it wasn't like the complete
Speaker A
absolute ecstatic you know elimination of me and then after that I thought I realized actually no wait a minute I like that I think that all things are good and so right St Maximus says that we participate that we become God to the
Speaker A
extent that that's possible that's that's just the the that's the phrases he uses is what he means is in something like we become God to the extent that the world can that you continue to exist that you continue because your being is
Speaker A
good as is good it has a goodness you don't want to completely snuff out the the the the pred particularity that God has put in the world and so and and it's when I kind of understood that that I
Speaker A
realized that the image of theosis that Christianity presents is something like the fullness of all things right so all things are mirrored are these reflections of God and that that is the fullness that is the fullness like that
Speaker A
that is more full in a very mysterious way I don't know how to say it metaphysically but that is more full than just the non dual God right just the the the the the god that transcends all things that God
Speaker A
that transcends all things creating the world in love so that it becomes an a transparent uh reflection of himself in a way that doesn't destroy any of that particular but rather you know gathers it in love in multiplicity and unity
Speaker A
that that's a bigger Vision actually than being a drop that goes back to Brahma yeah I'm not here I'm not going to I'm not trying to defend no no no I don't want you to defend V I'm just using examples to say why I
Speaker A
think you know even my own process of kind of seeing what what was precious about about the I think this is good by the way I think you're making so like I mean it again I think this is a I think
Speaker A
we're getting into Theos I feel like these are good answers that are like are provoking me in a Socratic way I feel that and I just want to share that that's it's happening for me okay so I I
Speaker A
that's good so now can can I add in that Spirit there's two things here so I mean this this issue has been broached in some very deep um interpersonal interreligious I should say but also interpersonal uh dialogue which goes on
Speaker A
to Theos uh there's Cobb's book you know uh uh a dialogue a Buddhist and Christian dialogue that is mutually transformative and then even more importantly the the Anthology around the work of maso Abbe which Christians and um Jews and others reply to in which he
Speaker A
said it's called emptying God in which he said well what we're ultimately talking about here is kinosis right and he he basically says well doesn't kosis ultimately require right the emptying of emptiness itself this Zen notion and he
Speaker A
says I don't see Christianity getting uh to that uh in some way and a way of making this perhaps a little bit more cre concrete as Jonathan uh Sor as Jordan was keeps calling us back to is I
Speaker A
get what you're saying uh how how do you make sure this isn't um just a crypto egoism which is I don't want to I don't want to cease to exist and that's why this is so good but think about how what
Speaker A
it looks like in practice but it looks like in practice is I am constantly trying to cease to exist that's in the sense that that Christian the idea of kenosis and of self-emptying yeah yeah yeah keep going way that Christianity functions it's
Speaker A
like humility self-sacrifice you know of of giving yourself giving yourself in love and the surprise or or or the the surprise to realize that that's the actual anchor of being that that that's the actual anchor of how you how you
Speaker A
exist uh you know and and and the and the resurrection in the end you know what is resurrected is all my gestures of self-sacrifice are resurrected into me but me in I mean obviously in a mysterious way in in a mysterious so the
Speaker A
there is something everything about Christianity is this kinosis without understanding that you can't understand any of it like why is why do we Martyrs why do we have all these things like you know it's like everything about it is
Speaker A
this emptying that that brings fullness okay so you're saying something really good and I I want to push on it because I believe you're not making a performative contradiction a performative contradiction is when you're making a claim that undermines
Speaker A
your ability to make the claim right uh like if as if I was to say right now I am completely unconscious no no I have to be right a performative and I agree with Whitehead that performative contradictions are much more important
Speaker A
than right uh propositional cont okay okay so good so one way it sounds like you're doing is you you're sound like saying well I'm pursuing this because right I I I think dissolving or disappearing is really good and then
Speaker A
what I'm trying to do is I follow this is to try to dissolve and disappear and that sounds like well no like who are you to make that like do you see what why there's a bind there right and
Speaker A
and you were pushing up against that I want to give you space because we're I I agree with what you just said I think we're really again good de logos we're really moving into the heart of this this really hangs on kosis and obviously
Speaker A
Agape uh but right it hangs on it in a really really crucial manner okay so uh I'm I'm presenting this as a bit of a paper tiger I hope for you it's like you're not saying that but say why
Speaker A
you're not saying that more okay well so St Paul you know St Paul has this image where he says it's not it's not it's not I that live a Christ that lives in me and yeah you know it's a beautiful
Speaker A
sentence because it it it captures the the it captures the Paradox which he's not he's not actually saying I don't exist anymore no saying it it's it's Christ that lives in me and so he's affirming himself to the extent that he
Speaker A
is a manifestation of the of the logos and that is what is left now the the the the way to go to get there is to you know is to shed right to shed a lot of the things that I my passions the
Speaker A
things that I care about but that ultimately once I do that once you do that and you you can experience it fractally it's not like I'm going to get to the end of it and all of a sudden I'm
Speaker A
going to realize oh I've been I've been self-sacrificing this whole time and so now finally I it's like you see it happening non-stop which is that when you when you enter into a loving relationship with someone and you let go
Speaker A
of your just proper desires and all the things that you want and you kind of seed way to that then you realize that it it it brings the person you and them together and what what comes out of it
Speaker A
is more than what was there before and so you're like oh wait a minute it's like it's not like this one thing that I'm doing like you I'm I'm stacking all my good works so that when I die
Speaker A
know what I mean it's like no I'm I'm noticing it happen every day every time that I that I enter into that mode of being where I'm where I'm where I'm not holding on and I'm not grasping then
Speaker A
what happens is I see more come out of it and I see more of of myself like I see more I see more of who I truly am right to say yeah so you're saying you're this you first of all I hear a
Speaker A
couple things here there's the realization that the self is inherently dialogical not a a monad a self-isolated thing but it exists diic cuz that's that your argument I think depends on that secondly you're invoking reciprocal opening again and you're saying if you
Speaker A
put those two together the self is dialogical and reciprocal opening you can move from being egocentric to reality Centric but that doesn't feel like a loss that feels like a gain is that okay so far yeah yeah yeah I say
Speaker A
that okay okay really good um this is very good so is it fair to say I'm not trying to be I'm not trying to be deductive I'm trying to be dialogical so I'm not trying to be reductive but is this is
Speaker A
this is this the grounding of your faith do you know what I'm trying to say again I'm not talking about propositions being derived from more deeper propositions we've gone through this thing about how do you get the particularity of your
Speaker A
Christian faith is this in that sense please be fair to me is in that sense is this the grounding of your Christian faith the way I just described it h okay so I'm going to say it back to you with
Speaker A
with yeah slightly different way but I think I heard you um so so all three of us happen to be fathers yes their children and we have the first person experience therefore of the kosis that is intrinsic in parenting
Speaker A
all the way down to the color of your the hair and your beard and yeah and the loss of your life you lose years for every child yes absolutely and to the unique qualities of possibility of joy that are
Speaker A
exclusively possible in this creative act mhm gated or mediated simultaneously by both the kosis and the communion and the unparalleled degree of new qualities of grief that are available also in this experience MH and in the recognition in yourself
Speaker A
that both in spite of and because of the a for mentioned It is incomprehensible that you could be even vaguely who you are absent that right right right right um that's probably the closest to the grounding of my faith that I can get
Speaker A
I have a process where I go oh oh oh right if my grief at the suffering of my children is X how much greater is God's grief at the suffering of all of creation and I notice that there's
Speaker A
something about the these connections where I can have a sense of real empathy down and and suddenly have a really weird sense of empathy up huh I get it I get it now now you know I get you God in a weird way
Speaker A
because I kind of now I get my dad oh my actual dad which I didn't get before when my kids do something like oh I get it I get what was going on in the experience of a being who loves me from
Speaker A
the outside like from before I existed and understands me in a certain context and there through that line there's a way of having a quality relationship with the ABA and so that like the rightness of that the way that that
Speaker A
actually develops the way that grounds everything else and by the way in this not also philosophically and metaphysically um yeah I would say that's probably the ground of my so I heard you saying I want to put two grounds together if
Speaker A
you'll prevent me from I hope I'm not grinding things um but um like so there was this one which is um the the onon normativity the goodness of being and therefore any attempt and I'm picking up on Jonathan here any attempt to Escape
Speaker A
is ultimately misguided and then I'm I'm fulfilling that commitment to onto normativity get entering into reciprocal opening deeper relationship with the goodness of being and the best way I experienced that is in the kosis understood as Agape because of course
Speaker A
parental love is the metaphor the the paradigmatic example of agapic love and Christianity um captures that sorry I don't have the right verb here but just let me use that word captures that very well for you is that is that did I say
Speaker A
it back to you in a way that lands well the captures part is is is not quite right so yeah it's right with that yeah yeah I don't like it but something like that yeah it's more like um strengthens
Speaker A
clarifies okay affords makes possible and supports so fors is pretty good right because they both pattern matches but more than pattern matching provides a model and more than modeling provides the embodied body of the church right an actual living incarnation of
Speaker A
the thing that the model is conveying that is real in the sense that all the things that I know in my deepest wisdom are the right ways to be in relationship with other people are lived in the community of my
Speaker A
church okay so um first of all thank you for this you both being very charitable to me and I appreciate that um um I do think there are versions of Buddhism that are committed deeply to Escape um Zen is a clear example of that um um you
Speaker A
the the idea of Nirvana is escape is explicitly completely uh repeatedly rejected um and then and there is the self-tying aspect in relationship to that and then there is the you know it's not I who live but the Buddha nature
Speaker A
that lives in me all of these if you'll allow me and I I'm I'm I'm searching for words all of these functions I'm trying to use a neutral term are found there um equally well um and um now I'm not
Speaker A
saying they're found equally well in all religions I'm not saying that I'm not saying that okay again I'm I'm I'm I'm you're doing what I'm asking you to do you're showing me why this doesn't degenerate into you know a liberal
Speaker A
Toleration kind of thing um right um so what would you I mean well does does does zen let's say formulate the infinite as relational to the finite yes and so can enter Emptiness is form form is emptiness exactly
Speaker A
explicitly so so I mean I I know this is going to sound weird but then why isn't why don't people pray in Zen um they um so I I happen to know Isen roshi and he he he prays and he chants um and and
Speaker A
and and so forth what is what is um what's the infinite like does it have a sense of humor I'm I'm sorry Jordan you're gonna have to be more precise in what you mean by that question well you know one of
Speaker A
the things of something that has a character relationship is that it has a character relationship and so the question is something like um well okay let me answer that let me answer that first uh okay so you know
Speaker A
this is shellenberg who's an atheist but he says what we're talking about we're talking about sacred is uh you know it's ultimately real and again not in the neutral sense in the antinormative I want to participate in it so that's a
Speaker A
relationship term I want to participate in it I want to conform to it I want to reciprocally open I want to real I want to be realized by it as I realize it all of that secondly it's ultimately
Speaker A
orienting like people reorient towards it right and it's ultimately transformative it causes you know this deep deep the deepest possible transformation from being egocentric to being profoundly reality Centric but does it care about you that's the question does it care about you why does
Speaker A
that matter to you that's a question it might matter a lot but it's definitely a question well so here's okay if we're let's do that I mean I I'm basically trying to do like what are the dots and
Speaker A
see where the patterns match and if they're isomorphic they're isomorphic and this ends up being something that may not be isomorphic and then we can talk about it right okay so the I the concern there is um I would I guess I I'm going to try
Speaker A
and speak on behalf of a Zen person that's a little bit tricky uh but speak on behalf of the Buddha specifically oh yeah yeah John will now be the Buddha the tagata right um you know U so um my concern and I mean this is this is
Speaker A
and this is not a concern that's like weird a lot of Christian theology has been responding to this concern which is the ontotheological critique the problem when you start saying it it cares for me or he cares for me is it sounds like
Speaker A
you're turning God into a person and and persons are prototypical Aristotelian substances in fact that's Aristotle's primary example of what a substance is a person which I don't think is a good translation of hypostasis by the way um
Speaker A
and and it's like um that seems to me to be making a category mistake um uh if if Ultimate Reality I'm going to let you use the word God for what you're talking about right um because we're trying to
Speaker A
see if the two meet um if ultim reality is uh pure relationality in this non- Escapist form of nonu nality that seems to preclude it from being any kind of thing MH so I mean you could you could I mean
Speaker A
I think we're using analogies here but obviously it's hard to talk about this yes it is it is I think the way to to understand the Jordan's question which which is perfect legitimate from a Christian standpoint because we say God
Speaker A
loves me right and so yeah but I don't love my child because they love me that's the that's not Agape I love go Spinosa right you shouldn't if you genuinely love then is there a sense of that relationship with the infinite like
Speaker A
is there a sense that they love it they love they love shata if that's what you're asking the question is shata love them why do you want that you're agapic you don't want no I'm not saying what you want I'm
Speaker A
saying if I'm looking for the ultimate then I need to have the totality of all possible relationality contained within the ultimate and an ultimate that does not contain the affordance for relate to for loving John literally logically is
Speaker A
less than one that does so that's it no no because you're engaging to what sounds to my mind like a perform of contradiction you're invol you're invoking ultimate relationality and then pinning it to the existence of a specific subject that is capable of a
Speaker A
predicate namely loving jaw okay good good good no so that's that's that's perfect let's call it the this is the Aristotelian error okay I like that name I don't like Aristotle so go ahead joh going all out here yeah yeah yeah so what I mean is I
Speaker A
I I don't like the standard reading of Aristotle that's got taken up in modern uh philosophy yes so this this notion that how do we say it right for God to love you God must be a person in the sense of a
Speaker A
substance is not right yes we agree on that so for love to unfold the infinite qualities that are intrinsic to the nature of love it must include within itself the quality of of loving John in fact loving all John's
Speaker A
cells and all the John's Quantum States right but JN specifically is the example we're using right now and any version of love all my Quantum States I love that hey the infinite is really big um that's a actually the infinite is not
Speaker A
really big the infinite is not really big caner was going to jump all over you for that one but go ahead um and and so any any way of of endeavoring to how do you say it any ontological that's not right
Speaker A
either yeah this is hard and I I I understand that I'm pushing you both really hard but you're you're being very kind for me to me I'm not yeah I don't know about John but I've been doing a
Speaker A
Monday Wednesday fast and so oh sorry Friday Wednesday Friday you fast I'm sorry I'm sorry Jordan I thought am I GNA break fast so I'm ready to go with John on this you know you don't have to do a strict fast nobody's forcing to
Speaker A
actually being faint is probably perfect the perfect State yeah yeah in my weakness his strength is is go exactly Jordan can I say one thing that might be helpful not because I think it's full agreement but I might
Speaker A
close the distance and give you something to work with um I feel um welcomed enveloped afforded by Agape by logos right but I don't I wouldn't say that I wouldn't want to create the sentence Agape logos loves me even though it's analogous to
Speaker A
what it's like when somebody's loving me are you saying that because it's bosa's fine with that too um the the the the Same Love by which I love God is how God loves himself and the the Love by which
Speaker A
God loves me is the same love that I have for reality that's that kind of thing uh no no what I'm saying is that the the totality of all possible ways of entering into the relationship of Love including the ones that you have with
Speaker A
your son but not limited to and much more is contained in love which is the name of God right but it I mean so again I tried to say something and this is a little bit TR it's something like saying like
Speaker A
and and and you know to be fair to me Nicholas of kusza says this love loves and it love is one with the Beloved he gets the TR out of love there's love there's the Beloved and there's the
Speaker A
loving right but he but he says there's ultimately just love and and you shouldn't think of it as love loving although you can talk that way U so I'm I'm quoting a Christian here by the way I'm not trying to impose something um
Speaker A
from the outside like like I said I I don't have any problem with the idea that uh I I I well I said it a long time ago when I talked about Agape Agape precedes me it'll be after me it is
Speaker A
through me and I am totally indebted to it and therefore I uh I I feel gratitude and gratefulness and and of course I mean logos as well as agape and for me that's what it's like to that's what I
Speaker A
hear when people say I'm being loved by God um so what about what about something like intimacy oh sorry quick uh I got to do a rule check so I got to go to our our resident Ortho bro because
Speaker A
I don't know this stuff is Nicholas Lusa a heretic uh I think is he a heretic in the Orthodox it's it's irrelevant what what date is Nicholas OFA uh he's what in the 1500s something yeah it's irrelevant it's like it's we
Speaker A
don't talk about that because they're all Heretics they're all Heretics okay good so we could just throw them out with I'm he's not a heretic in the Catholic Church which means unlike and unlike eart none of his uh propositions were
Speaker A
considered heretical either yeah and eard even eard like we don't know which proposition we're like yeah yeah he's being he's rard has been pretty much re re exonerated exonerated at this point you don't his statements are prob the P
Speaker A
that we're that we're questionable are probably not in his writings anymore anyways we can't we yeah so the the the topic that maybe I would put on there and maybe even can leave it there for the moment is that there's this notion
Speaker A
of the concept of intimacy the quality of intimacy um that that must be present for and again I'm just sticking here as a straight logic um if it's if exists at all in reality then it must be an expression of that
Speaker A
which is the ultimate and the question is is that actually part of this of of the infinite or the one or the ultimate if you're if you have a relationship of intimacy and intimacy is reciprocal in nature yeah you're not You're vulnerable
Speaker A
yes but there's also something like a you know reciprocal vulnerability again back to our the fact that Christ incarnated and actually died on a cross for for a variety of different reasons but part of that is actually the there's
Speaker A
a reciprocity of relationality you're actually entering into into a quality where and by the way an actual person which is important right that the quality of personhood does not define God but is a part of the of something
Speaker A
that God is actually expressing um or and I agree with you of course that hypostasis is deeper than Persona a um so that's I think a question that's probably worth circling around is this very precise point of what is the the essence
Speaker A
of the quality of the relationship of love and where does it sit in the larger kind of uh cosmologies and theologies I just want to say something also about about the idea that God loves us uh the way I think the best way to
Speaker A
also understand that is the way the the this reciprocal reciprocity that we have that you know God says Christ says love God and love your neighbor and that's also how God loves you right it's similar to what you were
Speaker A
referring to before John in Dante you see it very beautifully we're actually doing a class on Dante right now and the sense that God the the people that come into your life with with love that that you enter into
Speaker A
a loving relationship with they are the call to love God they are in some ways the draw they're drawing you into the love of God by their love right you have this beautiful image in in the in the
Speaker A
comedy where where basically it doesn't even say that God called like because it's too high but there's a sense in which you know the the mother of God the Virgin Mary calls upon Dante's uh uh patron saint who then calls upon beatric
Speaker A
who then beatric then goes and gets Virgil and now Virgil comes to encounter counter Dante and so you have this Chain of Love which which moves up right the the ontological ladder into God's love which is pulling all these
Speaker A
things into him and so you know you know we can obviously we can experience sometimes glimp glimmers of this the directly God's love but to say God loves us is to state is the same thing as to state that the world is good right it's
Speaker A
the same thing it's to say that that that all these all these aspects of reality are a a a a piece of the latter there they're an aspect of not in a utilitarian way but they're latter into God there a step there there's something
Speaker A
which is which is possibly revealing God to me at this moment and if I can be in the right posture then I I can climb that ladder I can see through the love of those around me through all the all
Speaker A
all of this that's pulling me into into into God and the and the Mysterious the most the hardest part of it and the most mysterious part of it is that sometimes when the love of those around me is
Speaker A
evacuated where I actually encounter hostility that also becomes ladder for the love of God to pull me into him because it's as if now it's a more direct it's a I can I can I can have access to a a more direct uh
Speaker A
relationship with God even when I'm being when when when Christ says blessed are those that are persecuted for my sake that that there's a so there's both of those are ways in which we can have this experience of the way that God
Speaker A
loves us both through the the hierarchy of Love of all the others but then also so when we are when we are uh attacked and for for for a for wrong reasons and you know for the name of Christ you could say you know and
Speaker A
then all of a sudden the love of Christ will also pull us into into him uh and and if you haven't experience it obviously it's hard to describe but it's something that you definitely do experience so I those two ter those two
Speaker A
things uh Jordan's point about intimacy and what you just said seem to go really well together uh in my mind um and um I understand uh intimacy as the affordance of reciprocal opening so I can I have intimacy if I can indwell
Speaker A
somebody and then they can indwell me um a deep profound participatory knowing and and then that affords reciprocal opening um and um again I think um I can have that kind of intimacy with what we've already greed with onon
Speaker A
normativity which is really real and I love it uh because it's really real and I do experience it in like like like Jonathan said in logo Agape uh horizontally uh with other people and upwardly and downwardly Into the Depths
Speaker A
and up ontologically um all of that is is the case um I but like I say and and maybe this is me me uh but I find that I don't deny that I can what everything I I can resonate
Speaker A
with that in Christianity Jonathan I was there in the gospel seminar and I I I I made that clear but right I also have that in the depths of buddh Zen especially the deps of neoplatonism um and and and again and
Speaker A
maybe this is ultim maybe we're pushing on something that we is maybe something that we can't ultimately uh get out into a formal thing it right um and I maybe I you know I may I may be asking for something that I can't
Speaker A
ultimately get what I hope I've offered is a way of explicating a lot more what you were saying Jordan and this is a I think this is a much better answer if you'll allow me uh to Jim than the one
Speaker A
that you were trying to work out uh because I think uh uh I that's that's as a friend uh because I think this is this is the kind of thing that is the way you try to persuade people um why you're a
Speaker A
Christian in a way that I think is profoundly has a potential to be what what I hope you think it is or want it to be which is profoundly calling to them uh rather than right do you know
Speaker A
what I mean I it's like we we went down this and there was a like I thought this was really good I thought there was this was genuine and I I I'm not trying to escape now or anything like that but but
Speaker A
do do you do you understand what I'm saying I I like there could be a point where we're looking for a difference that we can't that's ineffable that like because I keep saying yes I have that right and and and not trivially so
Speaker A
because I'll say this and you'll go yes that makes sense right uh and and but I'm not trying to be reductive either sorry I'm now you can see that running out because I'm starting to go into aoria so I I'll stop and let you
Speaker A
two respond to what I just said well it's interesting so what I noticed was that um I definitely don't want to persuade anybody um I don't necessar even want to call anybody which is weird because I know that that's I think what you're
Speaker A
supposed to do but whatever um yeah it is kind of all I want to do is tell the truth and all I want to all I want to do is follow as best I can the the model that
Speaker A
Christ laid down for us and to the degree to which you know the spirit puts something for me to do to do it with as much skill as I can which is not much um because I don't you it's critical I
Speaker A
don't understand I definitely know that I I It's the weird thing it's like the invert that Socrates thing I am quite certain that I don't understand how any of this works and that anything that I might try to do is definitely a bad idea
Speaker A
idea in a very particular kind of way and so um I'm really glad that you asked us to have this conversation I had a very distinct sense that this is uh it will rile a bunch of people up but you
Speaker A
know as you said though what it called persecuted in his sake in his name um but I feel like what we did was useful in a big way um and good very good yeah well thank you I mean this is
Speaker A
this is if you'll allow me this is I'm trying to and I'm showing up in good faith so this wasn't instrumental or anything I I have affection I showed up in good faith but this is this this is the philosophical
Speaker A
Silk Road I'm trying to get to where we can get into these deeply mutually transformative right dialogos about relationships to sacredness such that it's reasonable to to believe in the belan sense that we affording the the Advent of the Sacred
Speaker A
we we're help we're affording its presencing in people's lives in a way that could matter to them um and and so that's what I wanted to do I wasn't and I I I hope I showed up that way I wasn't
Speaker A
trying to refute anything I was I wanted I wanted to get the juice out uh if I can put it that way sorry I think there's there's also something that this is and I want to be careful you know
Speaker A
that people don't take this the wrong way because I really am a Christian in every way I really believe Christianity is the is the fullest uh Revelation but there's also a more practical aspect which is that there's a real practical aspect to
Speaker A
the to the idea that that we can't be meta like there's no we're not meta practitioners yeah and I think that that's what that's that's that's important too is that know the reality of of of being a Christian is not a is not lived in
Speaker A
asking you know how better is it from then let's say right it's it's lived in your morning prayers and going to communion and to confession and to you know and and living it with your family and your community uh so so that's also
Speaker A
like a that's something that can be completely ignored right in the discussion that although there are probably better people than us to argue like the fine points of Theology and of of of a you know and the differences let's say in in the
Speaker A
metaphysics of of the different systems at least I know that there are better people than me to do that uh um and but there is also that other part which is which I think is important which is like
Speaker A
I said that the Christianity I live is that's it it's like I go to church on on Sundays and I and I and I live my life in relationship with God and it's something that's that's real and existential and and uh and I
Speaker A
actually although it has happened in my life where I've had to ask myself that question you know about different systems in moments of Crisis let's say uh that is definitely not something that feeds my everyday life like I don't I
Speaker A
don't ask those questions most of the time you know I don't want to trespass most people don't either because yeah they live they live in the world that they live in you I'm not trying to trespass on that at all but
Speaker A
but but you don't want that to become a justification of insularity no obvious right because the the the we the I mean and this is part of I think we Jordan and I still agree the world needs to
Speaker A
form a a come kind of common Unity um or else we're in a lot of trouble and it's not going to happen and now we're in the Practical domain now so we've all agreed we've left down the theology it's not
Speaker A
going to happen by converting the world into Christianity um at least you've been trying for 2,000 years it hasn't happened and so I I have a good inductive argument and so I think uh again we're now agreed that we've moved
Speaker A
into the Practical domain at this practical domain trying to afford this kind of deep di dialogos is I think what is pertinent now in that practical domain yeah well I think there's there's always there's always room for learning
Speaker A
from each other you know and I think that that's not I I I don't think that's that's not a problem at all I I don't see that as an issue you know and you can even learn from other people's you
Speaker A
know you can you can meet a a a Muslim meet a Zen practitioner meet a Jew meet someone who's not in your religion and find deep admiration of their moral strength of their of their faith of their you know of of how they're
Speaker A
transformed by by something that is beyond them and I think at least in my opinion I don't think that that's an issue at all uh for me um and so I think that there there there has to be ways that we
Speaker A
can encounter others and learn from each other and see what's good about other other other world without it being trying to formulate constantly which world is better like no you see what I'm saying like I you you just articulated the philosophical Silk
Speaker A
Road that's exactly the philosophical Silk Road Project as you just articulated it yeah it definitely isn't ideological right you can say for certain this definitely has nothing to do with competing ideologies or the desire to create a totalizing universal
Speaker A
meta ideology right definitely not that um even eschatologically you know if you look at the way that's described in scripture the idea that all people are going to become Christian is just not there it's just not just not in the it's
Speaker A
not in the story like it actually seems to go the other way it actually seems to go like you know a bunch of people are going to become Christian and then people are going to hate you and they're
Speaker A
going to persecute you so it's not gonna it's not going to play out like in this uh I think that that Islam has a more might have a more more of a of a tendency to think that we're just going
Speaker A
to get everybody's going to become this thing although Christians have you know definitely you're evangelized but I don't I don't see how how even in the Christianity's own Cosmo cosmology you can imagine that at some point everybody's just going to become
Speaker A
Christian like in the escaton you know yeah I mean I again I mean there there are Eastern Orthodox David Bentley Hart who are universalists um though he's not he's not a Universalist in Kronos is he h yeah he's I
Speaker A
if David David I I love David Bentley Hart I loved his writings for many years I thought he was amazing I I think that I think sadly I think he's he's slipping into syncretism uh his universalism is pushing him towards uh more of a
Speaker A
syncretic approach and so I think that that's kind of that's kind of too bad a lot of his ideas are still really useful you you mean bad syncretism because all religions are syncretist in some fashion yes but they're not they're not so every
Speaker A
everything that exist is syncretist to some fashion and then it finds unity in the multiplicity but if you when you you mean a fragmented syncretism what I mean is that when you formulate it as syncretism like when you formulate it as
Speaker A
a kind of as a as a as a kind of Multiplicity that that isn't joined that has doesn't have to be joined in some kind of unitary practice think that's a dangerous like hodge podge I think that yeah yeah I get what you're
Speaker A
saying that be Temptation right Temptation which is the inverse of communion that which brings a multiplicity into a false Unity that is actually just a uh con uh what's that called in Material Science like you take sand sand is actually not actually a
Speaker A
whole thing if you melt it GL it is um so something that's interesting just to think about is the degree to which um we we each have particular callings we friends and I think becoming better friends which is really fun um yeah I
Speaker A
love it too and those callings are distinct right John is called to this this philosophical self ro road and that's a thing that's a role it's it's a critical element of what's going on and uh Jonathan is you know clearly just
Speaker A
getting better and better at looking really good on the internet and embodying Beauty in a way that is just you know to avoid any luck right my calling is to retire peacefully and quietly in the mountains of North Carolina and uh eat
Speaker A
barbecue um so it's it's very liberating actually I think to recognize that if we live the way that we're living following our calling and entering into relationships that are truly grounded in this requirement of to love one another then whatever else is
Speaker A
happening we're doing the right thing yeah I'm happy with that I I I and I I think it's fair to say that was my intent from the beginning uh right it was to try and do that I I I um I'm sort
Speaker A
of done the problematic I wanted to to bring um and have you to respond and again uh I think you both responded very well I I I genuine the logos I got to places I couldn't get to on my own and
Speaker A
and that matter to me and make me think uh uh deeper um on a more personal note I'm on a long journey of a kind of Repro mall with Christianity and this has been not I'm not saying I'm going to become a
Speaker A
Christian or anything like that but this um um coming to a place where I think I can um as much as possible be healed from just a traumatic apprehension of Christianity so I wanted to thank you of that oh happy we can we can play a role
Speaker A
role in in that that's wonderful and so I think I think this was the time we were where we we had allotted to our cell I think we we came to a good spot as you know these conversations they're always the
Speaker A
beginning they can go on forever and so thank you both both of you for your time and your your forthright uh you know stance I really always appreciate it it's it's wonderful um and uh and yeah remind everybody by
Speaker A
the way that I am going to be in Florida with Jordan Hall also uh and so I there might still be tickets to that event I don't know we'll put a link to it if there are tickets to it but we're going
Speaker A
to spend a whole weekend together with a few people uh having feasting and drinking wine and having wonderful discussions it's going to be absolutely great and don't forget that John will be doing a a course on on the Cog siai
Speaker A
ritual and that'll be part of that as well so so uh so let's let let's keep let's keep finding reasons to speak to each other and and work together so here here here here all right everyone thanks thanks for your time much love guys all
Speaker A
right byebye take care
Topics:John VervaekeJordan HallJonathan PageauChristianityZen Buddhismfaithritual cognitionparticipatory knowingincarnationapophatic theology
