Even intellectuals cannot always resist the bombastic clickbait.
A Conversation So Intense It Might Transcend Time and Space | John Vervaeke
John Vervaeke is an Associate Professor in Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Science at the University of Toronto. His work constructs a bridge between science and spirituality in order to understand the experience of meaningfulness and the cultivation of wisdom so as to afford awakening from the meaning crisis.
The introductory advert is slightly nauseating - and wrong - as it tries to propagate the myth that belief in some invented deity did some good by spreading literacy. JP should be reminded that the same priestly enclave of scribes existed in other cultures, so that even 100 years ago, in many countries literacy remained for the rich and the priests, and largely to propagate trade and religion; Vedic hymns and the Pali Canon spring to mind as non-Christian sources of literacy.
Before wading through the use and abuse of mathematical concepts in metaphorical discourse, worth reading this: Complexity & Stupidity (podcast transcript) or listen to the podcast itself.
We’ll start by covering some foundational concepts in science — like information, complexity and intelligence — and move on to their implications for society and culture in the future.
This is quite a good reference article just for those definitions. The problem with the metaphorical use of precise concepts is that metaphors can be elasticated to the point of snapping away from any meaningful anchor.
It's a heavy conversation between two people who have worked together, so we can imagine them having very similar conversations in private. The key to unlock the forest of concepts was when Vervaeke admitted to having transcendental experiences of the void - a state of pure awareness without objects.
Interestingly, Peterson doesn't latch on to this - not for the first time - so that, to me, it is clear that JP has no such experience. This is also why JP is rather stuck in the sea of myths and legends and faith, because he does not understand a state of being that transcends faith. As this is also true of most people, the archetypal use of myths in Jungian analysis is valid - I've gone through this myself - and can lead to therapeutic benefits and the development of creativity. However, it does not, on its own suffice to describe transcendence, or the orthogonal projection out of the sea of myth and into the clarity of celestial awareness.
Archetypes are psychological functionals, so they have a cultural manifestation and a universal energetic function. While JV tries hard to explain the energetic system, JP seems more comfortable in the symbolic realm; he needs to kick away Jacob's ladder.
John Vervaeke has a new channel that takes viewers through a practical Socratic philosophy, mainly through the lens of neoplatonism.: After Socrates. Both men are involved in setting up an online course for the public; Peterson refers to it as "humanities" based, but it strikes me this is in the classical meaning of the seven liberal arts, with additional modern insights that can help develop a spirit of transformation.