The democratization of the dialogic practices is proceeding apace. Here's to everyone finding their way to a deeper engagement with meaning through conscious dialogue! And thanks for the useful context of what neoplatonism is.
I haven't seen the Socrates series, but I did want to comment on the Awakening series. One of the problems I have with Vervaeke's Awakening series is that he tries to give an account of the meaning crisis (i.e. alienation in modernity) by way of a naturalistic account of cognition, while almost completely ignoring the social dimension. It's simply implausible to me that one could account for alienation without referring to social relations under capitalism, the pressures that arise from social systems geared toward constant growth, accumulation and acceleration, our relentless exploitation of nature, the commodification of everything, and so on. And even if you set aside these reservations about the primacy of the social, I would argue that his own explanation relies on the social dimension as an unexplained explainer.
His thesis is that prior to modernity, humanity relied on "psycho-technologies", namely various practices and techniques, to overcome the brain's cognitive vulnerabilities which threaten to bring on the meaning crisis. In modernity, these psycho-technologies become outdated because (as I understand his argument) our modern scientific worldview fundamentally transforms our relation to the world (the "agent-arena" relation or "participatory" knowledge) such that these practices are no longer effective. But a worldview is a cultural construction, reproduced and transmitted through social institutions, communicative practices and imparted to the individual through socialization. Vervaeke gestures towards the idea of culture as "distributed cognition", but otherwise does not explain in his chosen vocabulary of cognitive science how a socially imposed worldview can transform our sense of connectedness to the world. To be honest, I don't think one can do so in such terms. I think one needs a sociological account of how this happens, such as the one offered by Hartmut Rosa with his notion of resonance. Which again suggests the importance of social critique over individual cognitive adaptation when it comes to addressing the meaning crisis.
Favorite quote, "If you just pursue self-transcendence, you could fall prey like Kurtz to hubris, right? But if you just hold on to your finitude, you can fall prey to tyranny and servitude and despair. What you have to do is hold them in a creative tension, and so metaxú is actually central to our humanity."
I once tried awkwardly to explain this to my favorite pastor who said, "Oh yeah, that's the horizontal and vertical axes of the cross."
A brilliant thinker he may be, but a paragon of clarity he is certainly not. Following his train of thought is nothing short of torturous. Either that or I’m too dumb, and too impatient, to partake in his wisdom.
The democratization of the dialogic practices is proceeding apace. Here's to everyone finding their way to a deeper engagement with meaning through conscious dialogue! And thanks for the useful context of what neoplatonism is.
I haven't seen the Socrates series, but I did want to comment on the Awakening series. One of the problems I have with Vervaeke's Awakening series is that he tries to give an account of the meaning crisis (i.e. alienation in modernity) by way of a naturalistic account of cognition, while almost completely ignoring the social dimension. It's simply implausible to me that one could account for alienation without referring to social relations under capitalism, the pressures that arise from social systems geared toward constant growth, accumulation and acceleration, our relentless exploitation of nature, the commodification of everything, and so on. And even if you set aside these reservations about the primacy of the social, I would argue that his own explanation relies on the social dimension as an unexplained explainer.
His thesis is that prior to modernity, humanity relied on "psycho-technologies", namely various practices and techniques, to overcome the brain's cognitive vulnerabilities which threaten to bring on the meaning crisis. In modernity, these psycho-technologies become outdated because (as I understand his argument) our modern scientific worldview fundamentally transforms our relation to the world (the "agent-arena" relation or "participatory" knowledge) such that these practices are no longer effective. But a worldview is a cultural construction, reproduced and transmitted through social institutions, communicative practices and imparted to the individual through socialization. Vervaeke gestures towards the idea of culture as "distributed cognition", but otherwise does not explain in his chosen vocabulary of cognitive science how a socially imposed worldview can transform our sense of connectedness to the world. To be honest, I don't think one can do so in such terms. I think one needs a sociological account of how this happens, such as the one offered by Hartmut Rosa with his notion of resonance. Which again suggests the importance of social critique over individual cognitive adaptation when it comes to addressing the meaning crisis.
Favorite quote, "If you just pursue self-transcendence, you could fall prey like Kurtz to hubris, right? But if you just hold on to your finitude, you can fall prey to tyranny and servitude and despair. What you have to do is hold them in a creative tension, and so metaxú is actually central to our humanity."
I once tried awkwardly to explain this to my favorite pastor who said, "Oh yeah, that's the horizontal and vertical axes of the cross."
A brilliant thinker he may be, but a paragon of clarity he is certainly not. Following his train of thought is nothing short of torturous. Either that or I’m too dumb, and too impatient, to partake in his wisdom.
Thanks for this piece and for your work🌿
John Vervaeke and his vision is so fundamental for these times.
I have been watching his series After Socrates and this way of inviting us into a dialogos with our inner Socrates is very powerful.
I am writing in gratitude for your wise words and the conversation 🙏🏼