Peterson dialogos with Vervaeke

[AshvinP]

I do blame JP for diverting the discussion away from those things. He was jumping all over the map. I don't see how that could have been anything other than his attempts to relieve pain of sitting still. But I am saying we should try to mine whatever gold we can get from that discussion, now that it's over and it went the way it went. JP may reduce those mysteries to psychedelic use, I am not sure... but they are much more significant than mere use of psychedelics.

JP had an excellent discussion about psychadelics with an academic researcher. Of course, psychadelics can open "the gates of perception", but similar experiences can and do occur also spontaneously, and what is important is the actual learning and transformation, less so various tools and techniques.

Mostly I am trying to direct attention to the spiritual realities underlying all of that. It sounded to me like both JP and JV were eager to see how their academic thoughts in their respective works can be translated into more spiritual language, but also hesitant to do so at the same time. They both know the baggage that will be laid at their doorsteps by doing so and I think JV is especially worried about that because he is not as popular and "untouchable" as JP. Although, he may genuinely want to develop a whole new 'mythology' around these things sort of like Jordan Hall... I'm not sure about that. Some of it may also be unconscious or semi-conscious. Overall, I think JV has a much more grounded understanding of those spiritual issues running through Western mythology, philosophy, literature, art, etc. but JP has this broader and lower-resolution Trinitarian perspective and is willing to be more of a risk-taker and just blurt out things that are explicitly in those spiritual terms. I have sensed some of that in BK's recent conversations too but not to the same extent and BK is always very careful with his language as a professional philosopher. It will be very interesting to see if anything comes of these new explorations.

[AshvinP]

I really can't figure out why JV does not accept idealism yet... it's like everything else he says about consciousness and knowledge is exactly what flows from idealism, and he even knows BK is making undeniable arguments. Maybe because he thinks idealism is "too simple" of an explanation, and he doesn't want any ontology without a few layers of abstract concepts for the Ground? I don't get it.

The indoctrination surely dies hard, a death that often seems to require some indelible revelatory component, beyond just some cogent intellectual argument, which once attained then renders the intellectual case ancillary. JV may just be in that category.

Very good point. There must be death before there can be Resurrection

[Starbuck]

I really can't figure out why JV does not accept idealism yet... it's like everything else he says about consciousness and knowledge is exactly what flows from idealism, and he even knows BK is making undeniable arguments. Maybe because he thinks idealism is "too simple" of an explanation, and he doesn't want any ontology without a few layers of abstract concepts for the Ground? I don't get it.

He is energised more by epistemology than ontology. That is probably richer ground for professional academics. Analogous to there being more research into the soft problem than the hard problem.

[Soul_of_Shu]

He is energised more by epistemology than ontology. That is probably richer ground for professional academics. Analogous to there being more research into the soft problem than the hard problem.

Yeah, there does seem to be a certain indifference towards ontology, as if it's not really relevant to their real interest, and remaining agnostic must feel like the easier way to go, while working within academia. I somehow doubt that BK would have lasted long at U of T.

[SanteriSatama]

He is energised more by epistemology than ontology. That is probably richer ground for professional academics. Analogous to there being more research into the soft problem than the hard problem.

Yeah, there does seem to be a certain indifference towards ontology, as if it's not really relevant to their real interest, and remaining agnostic must feel like the easier way to go, while working within academia. I somehow doubt that BK would have lasted long at U of T.

Contemporary Academy is by definition limited to epistemology.

[AshvinP]

I really can't figure out why JV does not accept idealism yet... it's like everything else he says about consciousness and knowledge is exactly what flows from idealism, and he even knows BK is making undeniable arguments. Maybe because he thinks idealism is "too simple" of an explanation, and he doesn't want any ontology without a few layers of abstract concepts for the Ground? I don't get it.

He is energised more by epistemology than ontology. That is probably richer ground for professional academics. Analogous to there being more research into the soft problem than the hard problem.

Interestingly enough, there is a part of the conversation where JV says, "if we want to answer the question of consciousness, we must get back to ontology" or something like that. He then mentions something about "object-oriented ontology", but I stopped around there and am not sure if he ever gets around to explaining what that is.