Видео

The Trinity is inconsistent?

🐟 24. ŚŪDRA (THE WORKING-CLASS): A WORKER (“śūdra”, in Sanskrit) is a man who is paid money, or some other form of compensation (traditionally, usually paid with food, clothing, and/or shelter, especially in communities that didn’t use money), to perform specified tasks for another person or organization (but usually on behalf of a businessman, since businesses and farm owners are by far the greatest employers of staff in a free-market economy). In my own case, I have employed several human beings to labour for my mission, in exchange for food, shelter, as well as copies of my hymnal. So, by definition, a democratically-elected politician is actually a member of the working class, and not a member of the ruling class, since he receives a set wage from his employers - the tax-paying public. However, because politicians are literally stealing the occupation of a monarch, they cannot truly be classified as workers, but as CRIMINALS. This applies to any other “work” necessitating immorality, such as prostitution, police and military personnel who serve illegitimate governments, and those industries in which animals are unjustifiably harmed, such as animal husbandry (otherwise known as animal agriculture), circuses, the fur trade, leatherwork, zoological gardens, and horse or dog racing. A TRUE king, on the other hand, would never condescend to such behaviour as being a politician. A monarch has been mandated to govern his people by a higher power, rather than the voting public, who will simply vote for a “leader” who will satisfy their whims, rather than discharge God’s perfect will (or for Atheistic readers, submit to the universal moral law explicated in Chapter 12 of this Most Sacred of Holy Scriptures). WOMEN are permitted to perform work only in dire circumstances, or when a certain task can be performed only by a female. Read the following chapter of this Holiest of Holy Scriptures in order to learn about the proper role of girls and women within human society. The essential role of a (competent) worker should be to follow the same process that ALL subordinates ought to follow with respect to their superiors (that being their masters and/or mistresses). That is to say, they should look at their master whilst conversing with him, carefully listen to what their master is positing, try to understand the said instruction (or else, request that their employer explain themselves in a more easily-understandable manner), answer their master (e.g. “Yes, Sir!” or “Okay, Boss!”) and dutifully accomplish the tasks required of them. This procedure may be summarized by the following FIVE steps: 1. look 2. listen 3. learn 4. answer, and: 5. obey N.B. Obviously, the term “worker” pertains solely to WORKERS. Therefore, those men who belong to one of the other three classes of society (namely, business owners, kings, and priests) should never be associated with the terms “work” or “worker”. A businessman does not work as such - he owns a mercantile enterprise. A monarch does not work - his divinely-mandated role is to rule a nation. Priests are not workers - their vocation is to teach all things necessary for human society to function smoothly (that is, law/dharma, yoga/religion, proper diet, et cetera). As mentioned in the first paragraph, work is an occupation that one performs purely in exchange for a set wage (either in cash or in kind). See also the entry “caste” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture, especially if you happen to be in any way connected with Vedic culture. “You shall not oppress a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns.” Deuteronomy 24:14, “Holy Bible”. “Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life.” ************* “Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it.” Steven Paul Jobs, American Business Magnate. “He who stands on tiptoe doesn’t stand firm. He who rushes ahead doesn’t go far. He who tries to shine dims his own light. He who defines himself can’t know who he really is. He who has power over others can’t empower himself. He who clings to his work will create nothing that endures. If you want to accord with the Tao, just do your job, then let go.” “Dao De Jing” Chapter 24, Laozi (or Lao-Tzu). “In this age, the most common relationship people have with God is to be a thief of God - to try to take as much as possible.” ************* “The idea of being a servant of God is to be a total slave to God. It is in that slavery that we attain freedom”. Robert “Shunyamurti” Shubow, Abbot, Sat Yoga Institute, Costa Rica.

Elusinian mysteries aka as dionysian mysteries aka the works of the nicolaitans = the thing that Jesus hates.

I think the mystery religions played a huge part in Christs statements in biblical times. And people were trapped in their lives to them, the dionysian, elusinian, and all the small clan religions across the world were all based on sexual rites. I even believe that many of the Saints of Catholic and Orthodox Church were fooled by the demonic spirits of sexual magic.

Your answering questions i was to timid to ask anyone. And in a direct nature that goes beyond all the alchemical lectures ive listened to for five years.

Kind of like ferns that reproduce through spores that actually form the sex organs outside of the parent and then these same organs react to mist ( water) and in combination with the wind (the Spirit) fertilization takes place and eventually the zygote forms new plants . I tried this methoed on some ferns i grow as houseplants and it was remarkably easy and was fascinating to observe. But now i have a boatload of ferns 😳

Im new here but very impressed with your content.

Im finally understanding so much thankyou to this young man..

Can anyone help point me to further reading for the following idea, which i am convinced of, but i need to follow up with all the implications: God's essence is infinite existence. Existence is consciousness. Thus, God is infinite consciousness. Reality exists as an idea in God (God's mind). Our essence is also consciousness/existence, but finite. Thus, we are created in the image of God. Thank you!

The course has happened and recordings are available here: thesymbolicworld.com/courses/symbolic-world-metaphysics The book is in the final stages before publication.

Bonjour, est-ce que les cours ont été enregistrés et serait-il possible d'accéder au contenu?

2 years later, listening again and gathering more than ever. Thank you both again

Even rocks have feelings.

I loved the Course.

Palamism: In direct contradiction to Catholic theology, Palamite Eastern Orthodoxy considers Absolute Divine Simplicity to be the fundamental flaw in Thomistic Catholic theology. Just as the Absolute Divine Simplicity is the first and foremost principle in considering the Catholic view of the nature of God’s existence, so a fundamental division in the Divine, a Divine Duplicity, is the fundamental principal for understanding the God of Eastern Orthodoxy. This “Division of the Divine” is something which is posited between God’s “Essence” and His “Energies.” In Palamism, the essence of God is Absolutely Transcendent. He is beyond all Naming…Consequently, God’s Being, Power, Will, Love, Truth are not to be attributed to the “Essence” of God, but to His “Energies”. These “Energies” are to be seen as including all that is associated with what are called the “economies” of God - with everything which we associate with God “operating.” These Divine Energies, according to Palamism, must in no way be construed as constituting, or as being in any way identified with, the essence of God. In Gregory Palamas’ own words: “all these [the Divine Energies] exist not in Him, but around Him.” (The Triads, p. 97 - all quotes from Palamas are taken from The Triads, translated by John Meyendorff, published by Paulist Press). Further, the absolute non-identity of God’s energies with his essence is succinctly stated in the following passage: “But He Who is beyond every name is not identical with what He is named; for the essence and energy of God are not identical.” (Ibid However, the distinction between Essence and Energies goes much further than non-identity. It is an infinite distinction: “The superessential essence of God is thus not to be identified with the energies, even with those without beginning; from which it follows that it is not only transcendent to any energy whatsoever, but that it transcends them ‘to an infinite degree and an infinite number of times’, as the divine Maximus says.” (The Triads, p. 96) …According to Palamite theology the Names, economies, operations, and energies of God are not only real, but they are Divine and Eternal. They constitute every thing that is Divine, but is somehow compromised through dealing with anything in the universe that is outside of God’s absolutely transcendent essence. They might be defined as “Divinity in any way involved with, or compromised by, creation.” They are “the Divine outside of Transcendent God”, while at the same time being “the Divine in the world.” As we shall see, it is union with them, and not the Vision of the Essence of God, which constitutes Eastern Orthodoxy’s view of the final destiny of man. Simply and succinctly stated, Eastern Orthodoxy denies the reality or possibility of the Beatific Vision. The problem with such a theology, of course, is how to connect the absolutely transcendent God with the immanent Divine. According to Palamas, this transcendent God transcends the Divine Energies “to an infinite degree and an infinite number of times.” It is as though we have two Gods. To the first - the totally transcendent, ineffable, unknowable Divine - Palamas gives the Name God. But to the second - the Eternal, Uncreated “God outside God” - He only applies the Name “Divine.” How can we have two “Eternal Divines” without them being two Gods? His strange answer as to how this absolutely transcendent God can be connected to the energies runs as follows: “Essence and energy are thus not totally identical in God [to say the least: we are certainly right to question how something which infinitely transcends something else, and then infinitely transcends it an infinite number of times, could be considered in any way identified with that which it transcends], even though He is entirely manifest in every energy, His essence being indivisible.” In other words, Palamism presents to us an infinitely transcendent and unknowable God somehow un-transcending Himself and His transcendence in order to be entirely manifest in every energy. Again, we have the right to pose a question: How can a God Who is an infinity of infinities above His “Energies”, and is in no way to be identified with them, yet be “entirely manifest” in every one of them? It would thus appear that Palamism posits a God of Divine Self-contradiction as a logical and necessary consequence of the dualism which it has established in the Divine. James Larson: The War Against Being: Part III Eastern Orthodoxy: Never The Twain Should Meet - waragainstbeing.com/partiii/

Hello J.P. Can you give me a reading list of the books you will use in your classes on the metaphysics of symbolism? Thank you so much!!

Panpsychism and Neoplatonism: Re-Enchantment for Mathematicians and Physicists had a big impact on me when I read it initially and I keep it saved to reread occasionally. Would be interested for sure.

Great conversation. Have you ever thought about the economic systems? I feel like, since the failures of socialism, everyone is kind of afraid to challenge the philosophical aspect of the economy. I have a degree in Economics, but I have to say I was very disappointed in how dry and shallow economics as a science has become, especially after discovering Symbolic World. If religion is put as the highest value in society, I guess that should reflect itself in the way we do business. For example, I read that some big company in Spain has limited the CEO's salary to be a maximum of five times the lowest wage in the company. So, in order for the CEO to raise his salary, he has to pull everyone up. This reminds me of the relationship between the highest and lowest that Christ establishes. I don't think anyone has a complete picture of what should replace capitalism and socialism, but my intuition is that we should try to draw wisdom from the Bible, connect the dots, and maybe experiment on a smaller scale first. It would be a great topic to be added to the Symbolic World discussion because this rule of money as the highest value, I am sure, will crash on our heads eventually.Love to hear you opinion and maybe you tackle this question in some article.

Amazing. Is there a part 2? I can’t find it.

What Dr Vervaeke seems to miss (and I don`t blame him, it`s not clear in Clarke) is that each being in Aquinas has its own existence, each time you use the word "its existence" pointing to a thing you mean a different thing and it`s not just a matter of its essence. If it was really ONE existence and many essences then it would be a kind of pantheism although it would create problems with the potency inherent in the first cause: if the first cause is capable of realizing itself, constraining itself, it would have an inherent potency and would demand a more primary casue which would be pure act. That`s why Aquinas insists on the separation of God and reality, because change, multiplcity and coming to be requires an inherent potency, an essence allowing a thing not to exist. But God is pure act, incapable of not existing, if He changed he would require yet another cause and wouldn`t be God. If He came to be at some time it would mean he wasn`t God, because coming to be requires an actualization of potential essence. That`s also why in 21:00 John says that esse works bottom-up. Trouble with distinguishing act and potency, also ascribing causal power to potency. But potency is causally active only accidentally, only if it is act wrt to something else. But when it plasy the role of potency its receptive and Aquinas thinks of matter as receptive, not giving existence. Of course the matter we see is secondary matter which already was actualized. And for this reason it can act on other beings. But only after being actualized by form. Aquinas does not invert the scheme. God is pure act, one thing, pure form. But His form is unrestricted. He gives things their particular existence (their particular esse), this esse actualizes a potential essence, makes its existence determined. Regarding your troubles with distinguishing essence with forms: essence is neccesarily a form and sometimes a form additionally particularized in matter). For Aquinas the essence of a particular being involves matter if it`s required for its particularity. There are "general" essences but these exist only in thought, they are abstracted from particular beings. Sometime we talk of "the essence ofanimality" but ths is an abstract, the real metaphysical principle at work is particular essences of particular animals and these are differentiated by virtue of their secondary matter. Although they have a form common to their species, the same causal powers, that`s why general scientific laws can work, because they describe the causal powers of forms common to many things. Sometimes essences don`t require further differentation by matter, that`s the case for angels. Obviously we know that actualization of potency is simultaneous on all these levels of a being and it`s not like essences exist before coming to be actualized. My thomist professor says in regard to neoplatonism that Aquinas takes the structure of the neoplatonic world and puts it in inside a being. And it could be intresting to Dr Vervaeke, because it provides yet another phenomenological distinction. If what Aquinas talks about is particular esse then in a particular being, there is an aspect of actual existence - factuality and the second, intelligible aspect - of what exists and these are causally related as act to potency. John would say that the whole reality works like this, Aquinas talks about a particular being. The point is pure existence (God) doesn`t differentiate into particular beings. It creates other beings which are particular by virtue of their essences. Also there`s an incredible moment Dr Vearveke says in 23:45 that it is unclear to him "what is the one of THE esse". And it is sooo revealing aboout how he thinks of esse. As one, universal thing, in a kind of pantheistic way. But the metaphysical language of Aquinas is analogical. He doesn`t always mean one thing one he says "form", "essence" or "existence". These are roles played withing a being. According to Aquinas there are different existences, different beings with different esse. But there is one esse which is unrestricted, whose essence is "to be". This is the principle of God`s oneness, He`s the only pure act. But overall I`m really impressed that Dr Vervaeke takes the analysis so far and notices problems with his reading which are real problems. You were right in 44:30 that it all comes doen to an equivocation between the senses of existence and this is really the hardest problem of metaphysics. Aquinas does address thes issues in Summa Contra Gentiles, in De Veritate, De Potentia Dei most of all in a short treatise De Ente et Potentia (the most important work of him).

100% willing to participate, Central European Time though. Maybe you could also offer the recorded lessons in a way similar to what Jonathan Pageau is doing with his?

Is there an article where the problem of meaning crisis was formulated and where solution was given (in relation to Maximus, Thomas Aquinas and Balthazar)?

i would be interested. i'm in eastern europe

Fantastic update.

Thursday no earlier than 8pm eastern to accommodate Mountain and Pacific time zones

@jp when do you expect the book to come out?

Short answer …. YES. Please do! I can do all North hemisphere time zones

Would be very interested in this.

Sounds like a great idea! I wish you all the best with your course :)

I am pretty interested and I'd probably be down for the $150 or whatever it is since I probably would give to your patreon if you had one anyway lol. I don't know that there is a time of day when I could commit to logging into a course though. It may have to be asynchronous for me. Best time if I had to choose though would be 8 p.m. PST

I am very interested in a course, though I am in Australia so you are approx 17h behind. Your evenings are my midday. I would, without fail, acquire your book.

I'm really looking forward to hearing about this metaphysics, but wouldn't be able to pay for a course. So I'll be sure to buy that book!

🎉🎉🎉

J.P., as a fan of your work and philosophy graduate I heavily recommend the book by Remi Brague "The Kingdom of Man". That is by far the best scholarly argument about failures of modernism, and I think you will find a lot there to strenghten arguments of your book. By the way, since Remi Brague is professor on Sorbonne I'm sure there is french edition. P.S. can't wait to order your book. Best of luck!

I would be in. EST in the US. Starting at 6-7p my time would be great.

I love your observations about the in-practice, almost unsuspecting convergence to the union of emanation and emergence - even in cases that propositionally shut out the possibility. Very helpful to keep that door open in my own thinking!

If of interest, I made a philosophical construction quite contra to Aquinas and Neoplatonism. And I think it is robust. In a nutshell: There is no more One. spirit-salamander.blogspot.com/2023/05/real-death-of-god-theology.html

Around 55:00 (and maybe you get to this later) the problem w Spinoza’s argument, according to Scripture, would be that we love because He first loved us. The idea that we are capable of loving the ground of Being fails on that account. If He is not a Person Who first loved us, we would be incapable of love in the truest sense of the word.

Vatican I condemns the idea that spiritual beings emanated from the divine substance

That thing about hooking up mind and body is spot on. And its integrative monism with philosophy, theology, science, art, and business. 💯

11:13 bookmark

In my life I think the very most important expereince for me to have my business be under my love for goodness was to start my adult life in the 3rd world where I volunteered and lived locally with very little. This is the one thing I am planning to strongly encourage my children to do. It taught me more wisdom than I think I could have possibly received if I hadnt left the western world/narrative.

Hi JP. I loved how you said about good parents allow their children to jump up the layers quickly. That fills me with hope.

15:40 bookmark

John seems to say that being (created being) is for its own sake, and not ordained according to and toward anything outside itself. This seems close to the autonomy and even narcissism of the fall, where creatures rebelled against God, thinking they were ultimate, and forgetting they were for the sake of God. This points to a pantheistic and spinozistic tendency (deus sive natura). Mary on the other hand is saying that created being is ordained to and by God : it is not for its own sake but for God : it is a loving gift from God to be lovingly gifted back to God.

I need God to love me. Or else I am nothing. I need God to love Mary and John and Jean-Philippe. He does. The Ground knows us, and loved us before the foundation of the world. In This love, He freely created us out of nothing. I desire nothing else than for God and I to love each other. What Spinoza said sounds very sad and lonely, and is opposite to the Jewish and Christian, at least, kerygmas.

Can we submit questions about this through the symbolic world blog?

JP do you have a Patreon? Would love to see you start doing more videos

I'm glad you finally got into the theosis issue. It was starting to get distracting at how obvious the move was. It also helped me grasp the objection you would getting at, JP, from the Neoplatonists. I think a helpful point out of this discussion is that rather than trying to give them what they want, we can use this to point out that their view of God is fundamentally deficient. My imagining that creation can penetrate all the way up, they've reduced God and made their entire natural theology incoherent. But far from being helpless, a more Thomistic approach (or even Eastern approach) invites the creation, in man, to exceed what it could be by nature, to go beyond it, to really be supernatural in some real way. To partake in the Divine Love to become even more than what we are, and this by the grace of the impassible and immutable Act of Acts, God Himself. The Neoplatonists are asking for something less than is actually being offered.