Joscha Bach and John Vervaeke

[Soul_of_Shu]

A contemporary German idealist, Joscha Bach would make for an good candidate to exchange ideas with BK, but Vervaeke asks enough good thought-provoking questions to make this worth a listen, IMO ...

[AshvinP]

A contemporary German idealist, Joscha Bach would make for an good candidate to exchange ideas with BK, but Vervaeke asks enough good thought-provoking questions to make this worth a listen, IMO ...

To be honest, I can't listen to these things anymore. I went to 1 hr mark with Curt's suggestion, and we immediately come to the assumption of "hard limit to knowing", and these so-called limits always expressed in the most abstract intellectual concepts. It is the actually limited mode of cognition declaring its own limits to be fundamental to reality itself and practically eternal. And that is not even logically coherent claim to make under their own theory of limits. So we know the rest of their reasoning and conclusions about epistemology and ontology will be completely flawed, because it sets out from an incoherent and unwarranted foundation. Such as this from Bach:

"We cant rely on our coherence to remain stable. We must hope and pray what was coherent before will remain coherent in our next thought...

You can only experience waking up while you are still in a dream,"

Vervaeke at least takes a more pragmatic approach to knowing. Of all people discussing these things that I have come across, he is most likely to extend his own logic further to see how his own Thinking is not bounded by fundamental limits. Or perhaps Iain McGilchrist. Ironically, but unsurprisingly, it is the ardent analytic idealists who now rule that out as a possibility from the outset, and with utter confidence, while the metaphysical agnostic like JV perceives the inconsistency and impracticability of Kantian epistemic nihilism.

[Soul_of_Shu]

To be honest, I can't listen to these things anymore. I went to 1 hr mark with Curt's suggestion, and we immediately come to the assumption of "hard limit to knowing", and these so-called limits always expressed in the most abstract intellectual concepts. It is the actually limited mode of cognition declaring its own limits to be fundamental to reality itself and practically eternal. And that is not even logically coherent claim to make under their own theory of limits. So we know the rest of their reasoning and conclusions about epistemology and ontology will be completely flawed, because it sets out from an incoherent and unwarranted foundation. Such as this from Bach:

"We cant rely on our coherence to remain stable. We must hope and pray what was coherent before will remain coherent in our next thought...

You can only experience waking up while you are still in a dream,"

Vervaeke at least takes a more pragmatic approach to knowing. Of all people discussing these things that I have come across, he is most likely to extend his own logic further to see how his own Thinking is not bounded by fundamental limits. Or perhaps Iain McGilchrist. Ironically, but unsurprisingly, it is the ardent analytic idealists who now rule that out as a possibility from the outset, and with utter confidence, while the metaphysical agnostic like JV perceives the inconsistency and impracticability of Kantian epistemic nihilism.

When do you suppose they, and umpteen thousands of viewers, will ever hear a corrective case being made, given the unlikelihood of them ever paying attention here?

[Ben Iscatus]

When do you suppose they, and umpteen thousands of viewers, will ever hear a corrective case being made, given the unlikelihood of them ever paying attention here?

Curt posed this kind of question in the interview with Leo Gura at the 4 hour mark.
Unless you make a name for yourself in academia, it's a question of a continuous, lifetime effort - since, Leo says, there are limitless people with theories of everything, and most must be sifted out based on qualifications (as BK weeds folk out if they don't have a PhD).

[Eugene I.]

Unless you make a name for yourself in academia, it's a question of a continuous, lifetime effort - since, Leo says, there are limitless people with theories of everything, and most must be sifted out based on qualifications (as BK weeds folk out if they don't have a PhD).

Well, this is a consequence of a deeper phenomenon so characteristic of our times. A few centuries ago in Europe people lived in the world of singular knowledge, there was only one variant of religion, of math, of physics and perhaps a few versions of philosophy. Modern humanity is facing the phenomenon of explosion into the unlimited number of worldviews and theories. In physics there is about 10^500 variants of sting theory with no way to experimentally prove which one corresponds to reality. Same in other areas of knowledge. We have to adjust to it and live with that, there is no going back to a cozy world of singular knowledge, no matter how much some people may feel nostalgic about it.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Unless you make a name for yourself in academia, it's a question of a continuous, lifetime effort - since, Leo says, there are limitless people with theories of everything, and most must be sifted out based on qualifications (as BK weeds folk out if they don't have a PhD).

I'm assuming you mean a PhD in philosophy. No doubt he felt it was necessary for him to get it, to be taken seriously by Academia. But given his respect for someone like Rupert Spira, he surely doesn't feel that PhDs are a prerequisite to be taken seriously as a thinker. Indeed, it could be a hindrance for many, if they hold it as a badge of status quo thinking, and feel no need to go beyond that. Still, I respect the ones who are trying to pull off an inside job, so to speak, rather than just being content to collect the paycheck, or being the ones scoffing at those who are putting themselves out there to at least face the critics.

[AshvinP]

To be honest, I can't listen to these things anymore. I went to 1 hr mark with Curt's suggestion, and we immediately come to the assumption of "hard limit to knowing", and these so-called limits always expressed in the most abstract intellectual concepts. It is the actually limited mode of cognition declaring its own limits to be fundamental to reality itself and practically eternal. And that is not even logically coherent claim to make under their own theory of limits. So we know the rest of their reasoning and conclusions about epistemology and ontology will be completely flawed, because it sets out from an incoherent and unwarranted foundation. Such as this from Bach:

"We cant rely on our coherence to remain stable. We must hope and pray what was coherent before will remain coherent in our next thought...

You can only experience waking up while you are still in a dream,"

Vervaeke at least takes a more pragmatic approach to knowing. Of all people discussing these things that I have come across, he is most likely to extend his own logic further to see how his own Thinking is not bounded by fundamental limits. Or perhaps Iain McGilchrist. Ironically, but unsurprisingly, it is the ardent analytic idealists who now rule that out as a possibility from the outset, and with utter confidence, while the metaphysical agnostic like JV perceives the inconsistency and impracticability of Kantian epistemic nihilism.

When do you suppose they, and umpteen thousands of viewers, will ever hear a corrective case being made, given the unlikelihood of them ever paying attention here?

It's very small, but each individual who hears the corrective case and acts on it can make a world of difference. If we take the reality of spiritual evolution over multiple lifetimes seriously, then we also see how what we think, feel, and do in this lifetime really matters. We won't passively settle for the world of hyper-fragmented culture that we see around us. We will try to 'save the appearances' in our own lives through our own spiritual activity, trusting our seemingly 'trivial' actions have a sphere of soul and spirit influence which is much more expansive in scope than we currently imagine. Passive acceptance of the present and future is the shadow of longing for more simple past times - they all result in the same feeling of helplessness and apathy. What we need today is adaptive and active spiritual engagement with the world content.

[Soul_of_Shu]

It's very small, but each individual who hears the corrective case and acts on it can make a world of difference. If we take the reality of spiritual evolution over multiple lifetimes seriously, then we also see how what we think, feel, and do in this lifetime really matters. We won't passively settle for the world of hyper-fragmented culture that we see around us. We will try to 'save the appearances' in our own lives through our own spiritual activity, trusting our seemingly 'trivial' actions have a sphere of soul and spirit influence which is much more expansive in scope than we currently imagine. Passive acceptance of the present and future is the shadow of longing for more simple past times - they all result in the same feeling of helplessness and apathy. What we need today is adaptive and active spiritual engagement with the world content.

If indeed what academics like Vervaeke, Bach, Hoffman, etc, are offering is counterproductive to making the case, and serving no useful function in terms of chipping away at the edifice, do you feel that making the case successfully within academia is a lost cause?

[AshvinP]

It's very small, but each individual who hears the corrective case and acts on it can make a world of difference. If we take the reality of spiritual evolution over multiple lifetimes seriously, then we also see how what we think, feel, and do in this lifetime really matters. We won't passively settle for the world of hyper-fragmented culture that we see around us. We will try to 'save the appearances' in our own lives through our own spiritual activity, trusting our seemingly 'trivial' actions have a sphere of soul and spirit influence which is much more expansive in scope than we currently imagine. Passive acceptance of the present and future is the shadow of longing for more simple past times - they all result in the same feeling of helplessness and apathy. What we need today is adaptive and active spiritual engagement with the world content.

If indeed what academics like Vervaeke, Bach, Hoffman, etc, are offering is counterproductive to making the case, and serving no useful function in terms of chipping away at the edifice, do you feel that making the case successfully within academia is a lost cause?

All indications would point that way. On the other hand, I don't rule out the possibility of a 'stroke' of spiritual insight due to reasons unknown. But I don't see how any further attempts to call their attention to PoF, for ex., are going to help. They simply aren't interested in considering anything which strays too far from their established intellectual framework.

[Ben Iscatus]

I'm assuming you mean a PhD in philosophy. No doubt he felt it was necessary for him to get it, to be taken seriously by Academia. But given his respect for someone like Rupert Spira, he surely doesn't feel that PhDs are a prerequisite to be taken seriously as a thinker. Indeed, it could be a hindrance for many, if they hold it as a badge of status quo thinking, and feel no need to go beyond that.

Yes, BK feels it is necessary -it was for him personally, and he has carried that forward to Essentia - pretty well all contributors are PhDs . He does express serious reservations about this - in fact sometimes he says that someone who holds a PhD has a license to spout nonsense and be taken seriously. But he hasn't found another way of gaining momentum in the world of ideas. And his daemon wants him to do that