After Socrates: Episode 15 - Socrates Meets Kierkegaard: Philosophy's Greatest Dialogues
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- In episode 15 of After Socrates, Dr. John Vervaeke and Christopher Mastropietro engage in a thought-provoking discussion on the relationship between Socrates and Søren Kierkegaard, exploring their philosophical approaches and examining the complexities of Kierkegaard's works. Dr. Vervaeke is a cognitive scientist and philosopher at the University of Toronto, well-known for his expertise in the cognitive science of wisdom and mindfulness practices. Christopher Mastropietro is a scholar, author, and editor specializing in philosophy, religion, and culture.
The conversation covers Kierkegaard's literary and philosophical context, his use of pseudonyms, and the connections to Socrates in his methods. The hosts delve into Kierkegaard's concepts of the dialogical and aspirational self, highlighting the paradox of being and not yet being oneself. They also discuss "life views," the importance of understanding subjective states from within, and the concept of pathologos, or "sick belief."
The complexity of Kierkegaard's works is examined, focusing on layers of meaning created by dialogues between characters, as well as his portrayal of a world filled with unnecessary desires and unsatisfying pursuits. The hosts also discuss the dilemma of marriage in Kierkegaard's life and works and his willingness to expose himself in writing while maintaining anonymity through pseudonyms.
They also explore the ironic nature of self-pursuit in Kierkegaard's works and delve into his views on self, responsibility, and the role of Socrates in disillusioning individuals from modes of self-relations that are less than ultimate.
Books Referenced:
Kierkegaard and Socrates: A Study in Philosophy and Faith | Jacob Howland
Kierkegaard and Spirituality | C. Stephen Evans
Kierkegaard: A Collection of Critical Essays | Josiah Thompson
The Humour of Kierkegaard: An Anthology | Thomas C. Oden
One of the things that I love about Kierkegaard over other modern philosophers is that instead of getting you to agree with him and say "You're right", his writing makes you jump out of your seat and exclaim "That's right!" He makes you see the world more clearly because he wipes away the ironic falsity in which we live in the world.
The level of irony it takes for RUclips to make this algorithmically accessible to someone like me is a miracle , John and Chris feel more like angelic prophets disguised as academics . Thanks so much !
They sort of are. Masked cluster B's deconstructing their natural antinomy's projection. This is neuro-sociological "propaganda" well disguised in a set of dogwhistles. Sophisticated, really. But they aren't disclosing the grounds from which they are building this dialogue while attacking their other 🤗
One key aspect of the conversation which was such a success is that John even when he gestures that he wants to speak and Chris does not give in 'cause he's so immersed in what he's saying, he doesn't interrupt. He's such a good conversation partner, on the contrary, I'm constantly annoyed with Jordan Peterson constant interruptions, Jordan and John could make even better conversation partners if Jordan could learn how to flow better. This was beautiful, many thanks.
Only that man’s life is wasted who lived on so deceived by the joys of life, or by its sorrows, that he never became eternally and decisively conscious of himself as spirit, as self, or (what is the same thing) never became aware ... of the fact that there is a God, and that he, he himself, his self, exists before this God, which gain of infinity is never attained except through despair.
- Kierkegaard
Absolutlely shambolic performance by the audio team, y'all need to get it together. These are two masters at work, treat them as such. I approve this message.
I came off with the idea that Christopher was a bit too full of himself in his past appearance, most certainly due to his demeanor and speech cadence. I started off feeling the same way for the first minutes of this episode and after carefully listening through the entire thing I now can clearly see that he is an incredibly, outstandingly smart and articulate person.
This is not meant as a cheap shot or insult, just to illustrate how often non-verbal cues and brief impressions can be so distorting in getting a sense or proper grasp of the real human being.
Fantastic video.
It is condescending all the way through for me,
Great talk! About the Irony thing: I really feel like Dostoevsky does the same thing with characters like Ivan and Alyosha. He doesn't necessarily not agree with Ivan, but he inhabits both Ivan and Alyosha but in different ways. Even Ivan is contradictory to himself in his actions and thoughts.
Wonderful conversation John and Chris! There is such a yearning out there for the Good, the Beautiful, and the True.
Wow! What an exhilarating dialogue! Admittedly, I have struggled with my reading of Kierkegaard. So, the first 25 minutes of this dialogue can be frustrating for those of us, who must return to Kierkegaard’s writings until we finally have an adequate grip or comprehension of his concepts.
But, even without a strong grasp of Kierkegaard’s writings, after 25 minutes, this dialogue becomes magnificently engaging, especially for students, for readers, for listeners, who have studied, read, or listened to the previous episodes of “After Socrates” and “Awakening From the Meaning Crisis“, Prof. John Vervaeke’s two major video lecture series.
I am dedicated to the liberation of the working class, to the liberation of humanity, but especially dedicated to the liberation of the working class because of the oppressive power imbalance under which the working class must operate. But, if “there is no political solution,” to quote The Police (as Prof. Vervaeke did on the episode on Romanticism, if memory serves me, from Awakening From the Meaning Crisis), it is because we, as a working class (or humanity more broadly), are so horribly divided and conquered by the power elite and, increasingly, by the global power elite. And, if so, it’s because we are sinners, i.e., engage in self-deception, engage in foolishness. As Christopher Mastroprieto said, sin is a failure of will, not a matter of ignorance.
So, we must cultivate wisdom within, and between, wisdom-cultivating communities, so that together we can awaken from the meaning crisis, as Prof. Vervaeke encourages us, and, in so doing, transform ourselves, such that we can rise to the challenge before us, to the challenge of the interlocking crises we find ourselves immersed within, the political crises, the socioeconomic crises, the mental health crises, the ecological crises, all overlaid upon the deeper meaning crisis.
Since the scientific worldview has laid waste to the psychosocial tools of religion, which used to afford wisdom-cultivation, we seem to find ourselves in dire need of a religion, which is not a religion.
To that end, Prof. John Vervaeke and colleagues provide invaluable guidance.
Working-Class Solidarity ✊🏽✊🏼✊🏿✊
Lumpen.org
lumpenproletariat.org/2023/03/31/plandemic-dystopia-701-31-mar-2023-fri/
[00:00](ruclips.net/video/Abaxmkvk3Fc/видео.html) Kierkegaard's work and character cannot be separated, exemplifying the Socratic tradition
- To read Kierkegaard is to enter an eye-thou relationship, due to his dramatic and poetic writing style
- His melancholic temperament and personal experiences influence his work and contribute to his unique style
[08:06](ruclips.net/video/Abaxmkvk3Fc/видео.html) Kierkegaard's life and work were primarily expressed through his writing.
- Kierkegaard wrote prolifically, despite his relatively brief life.
- He enjoyed the irony of seeming unproductive, while actually writing copiously and extensively under pseudonyms.
[15:34](ruclips.net/video/Abaxmkvk3Fc/видео.html) The self is a multiplicity of voices in dialogue with each other.
- Kierkegaard's use of pseudonyms allows for an internal dialogue within the self.
- The pathologos represents a sick belief that is ultimately illusory.
[22:50](ruclips.net/video/Abaxmkvk3Fc/видео.html) Kierkegaard explores the mistaken identity of pursuing one's longing
- Kierkegaard's writing depicts a world with different forms of longing, desires, and problems
- The pursuit of worldly engagements and the imagined self is often a case of mistaken identity or orientation, thus, ultimately not satisfying
[30:40](ruclips.net/video/Abaxmkvk3Fc/видео.html) Kierkegaard's concept of sin as a failure of will, not ignorance.
- Socratic inquiry smashes repetition and disillusionment.
- Seducer prevents the genuine dialogical knowing of oneself.
[37:59](ruclips.net/video/Abaxmkvk3Fc/видео.html) Irony helps in understanding the finite nature of roles and the importance of context
- The ironist questions what comes before the finite scope of reference in roles and contexts
- Irony is used to develop relationships with what is more real
[45:40](ruclips.net/video/Abaxmkvk3Fc/видео.html) Breaking patterns of repetition for authentic self-realization
- Challenge attachments to objects of identification
- Enter dream world to shake things up towards lucidity
[52:49](ruclips.net/video/Abaxmkvk3Fc/видео.html) Socrates' fundamental project is to track a through line that grounds the whole
- Socrates follows the logos and tries to find the through line through the different aspects and perspectives
- Irony is necessary but not sufficient, and it sensitizes us to receive the paradox
- Socrates' arguments are treated with a great deal of detail, not because they are true but because they have some relationship to the truth
[59:52](ruclips.net/video/Abaxmkvk3Fc/видео.html) Kirkegaard's model of Christ as relation, waking us up from sin and despair.
- Christ is outside and inside the frame, related to the ground of real and responsible for it.
- Seeking the Dream Weaver and connecting with the world outside the dream requires a symbol and proper relationship.
[1:06:59](ruclips.net/video/Abaxmkvk3Fc/видео.html) Reflect on personal relationship with irony
- Irony is not cynicism or sarcasm
- Freedom of will is about relation to what is prior to us
[1:14:12](ruclips.net/video/Abaxmkvk3Fc/видео.html) Irony wakes us up to the fact that our identities are provisional and refer to something outside of them.
- The multi-perspectuality requires finding the through line leading to true self.
- Irony helps in participation of particular identity and striking towards the definition of a virtue.
Once again, this episode is a blessing.
Very exciting to explore the possibility that perhaps in the dialogues, Plato is exploring his own introjects and their attendant logoi seeking some resolution.
The deepening of that notion of perspective into "life view" is absolutely electrifying!
Thank u for Sharing Prof. John. Greetings from a Peruvian listeners in Peru
I don't know many of you are familiar with Kierkegaard? Or how many of you are Christians? In my opinion he has more to offer in his religious writings (edifying discourses) than in his philosophical. Although his philosophical writings are excellent also. He has a polemic writing style that paints perfect pictures. I really think he is the most underrated and underappreciated theologian and philosopher.
"A fire broke out backstage in a theatre. The clown came out to warn the public; they thought it was a joke and applauded. He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think that's just how the world will come to an end: to general applause from wits who believe it's a joke."
-Soren Kierkegaard
Holy moly, I just cried a good cry. ❤ Thank you both for your help.
Absolutely brilliant and beautiful. Probably my favorite after Socrates episode. Well done, it is as if this episode shows potential of a profound breakthrough , perhaps I see pieces of it already shining through. I wish the conversation could have continued or that I could have expanded it and contributed to it. This is so interesting and well designed. The conversation facilitated many things. Well done, both of you. 🤝 Bless your hearts ❤ well done for being courageous and confident. Thank you both.
Pretty sure you can be a Patreon member and submit questions or watch the premiere and contribute to livechat? Maybe I'm confusing other podcasts?
I got very little out of this but man did I still love watching it. 🙏
ive been using bing chat to discuss these topics and its incredible how deep it can go, you can even get it to speak to you like any of these philosophers and ask questions, its truly amazing.
At 18.43 mins I shudder because you are showing me that what I live as asincere sadhak for 30 plus years ...is ironic!. I follow the Indian tradition....Santana Dharma...and we accept from the get go the nature of paradox..IAM....by my birthright...but now knowing that, I have to walk the talk. Thats what ashram life has been about for me. But this explication that its ironic...is somehow soooo releasing. When we leave the ashram environment....we are Kiekagaard out on his lunchtime walk. We are consciously mindful of that. But our way is also guided by the Great Love thats says serve God in every person...wherever you are. The world is one family etc.
I hope you can feel the appreciation I'm feeling for this clarity of irony in action.
I wish there was a film on Keirkegaard...he feels so relevant to how we conduct ourselves and save our sanity during these mad, crisis laden times.
A masterpiece, this is the best format of the series so far! I would love to see it recurring, say in something like 'The rest is history' podcast!
Only just started watching~ gathering thoughts of visualising Kierkegaard prior to this dialogue, and then realising I now understand Jung's theory of active imagination a bit better, and his process of dialogue in the black books and the red makes more sense
Edit: not past 17 mins as I start again, again, again... thank you archive organisation for no charge borrowing options...when the first reading of Dialogues incomplete
That was wonderful. I had no idea that I had no idea what irony is. That there is some learned ignorance.
Thanks for the shout-out, Christopher!
Im loving this. What i am hearing is that the question of the ironist is "what are we?", rather than "who are we?", in the pursuit of what has ontological priority. I love this, we are embedded in a reality that is emergent from/ participating in the more encompassing reality. The repeating patterns are crystallised reality strategies that cut us off from our unfolding in the immediacy of our experience. Awake is when we are aware of where we are right now.
The thing that "breaks in" is a shock point that disrupts our habitual perspectives and identifications and results in a psyche+delos that causes an objectification of what can be objectified. (Characterised/ caricatured). Being/ Dasein cannot be named or caricatured. The stepping back from identifications makes this clearer over time.
Thank you for letting us engage with your dialogues through this medium, Chris and John. It's always a pleasure to listen to your conversations!
Loved it! Chris is very clear and concise on very difficult concepts. I appreciate that!
The thing about the pseudonyms of Kierkegaard and stepping out, assuming an identity other than what "he is" reminded me of George Gurdjieff, the Georgian mystic, he sometimes presented himself as a carpet merchant and simulated to be one, but he wasn't. Through participatory knowledge you are always assuming identities and assigning identities, and you often are stuck with one primary identity, stuck in the left hemisphere, like the guys from the decoding the gurus podcasts, without being able to create insight or take another perspective; also I'm reminded of what Joe Dispenza say about breaking the habit of being yourself. I also remember one good example of Peterson: the Canadian wrestler Bret Hart, people and himself forced him to be one character always inside and outside of the ring, something very problematic for him at the end.
Thank you for publishing such a beautiful and profound conversation! I also greatly appreciate the quality of this production (good audio & visual environment).
Very enlightning to explore ideas like this!
This was one of the best episodes of this series. Thank you both.
Your authenticity is miraculous.
Alannis Morrissette was not so wrong after all. We all aspire to a sunny wedding day. I was struck too, by the verse in scripture (John 3:8) that could be understood philosophically if we understand Jesus talking about his followers having the through-line in logos, knowing the past, the future and their logical place in the present. Joseph, like the rest of us, is missing the bus. An absolutely astounding conversation. Thank you both!
I was absolutely blown away by this conversation. Toward the end I was reminded a lot of the central themes that’s are present in Don Quixote, especially the relationship between irony, identity, and dreams. I’d love to hear your thoughts on that book if you guys have read it.
Either way, thank you for putting out this content. It’s a massive blessing to be able to listen and wrestle with the ideas presented. Keep up the great work!
thank God for such elevated discussions!
Absolutely a delight to the soul ❤. Thank you so much .
I had a dream where I told others,
"I am real but you aren't".
They got very upset with me for saying that.
Thank you both for this insightful conversation. I still remember my deep sentiment when I first read Kierkegaard's “Life can only be understood by looking backward; but it must be lived looking forward.” I didn't understand the irony back then, but it makes sense now after listening to this episode. Thank you.
Thanks. It seems to me that irony is allowed by mitochondria, is the James Webb telescope partly, is the EM between Sun and Earth, is possibly a conduit between centers as in moving from the heart of the solar system (sun) to heart of galaxy (black hole). From the many to the one, but going from the one to the many a bit tricky unless the observer is a true traveler with a good map! The figure in the dream might be one of the objects of the individual that is rested upon by the non-object spirit/person that is built and maintained by those access arrangements (objects) which also allow ironic conduits.
Wow. Brilliant. I feel renewed. Profound thanks from Tracy in Wales.
28:00 - super interesting to hear this description of behavior that I would understand to be that of a psychopath.
Much appreciated.
this was so cool. i've been waiting for a conversation like this for a long time. thank you ---
I have literally wept three times during this dialogue. So much upsetting Beauty.
Fwiw, you might benefit from exploring The Enneagram system - it is a highly differentiated and coherent model of the psyche describes 27 ways in which we fall into the Having vs. Being mode and sabotage our unfolding / Becoming through acting from distorted perspectives and misguided preoccupations (very particular patterns of salience distortion). Its philosophical roots are Neoplatonic within the Christian contemplative tradition of Evagrius through to Meister Eckhart and beyond. Everything that is "psychological" in this episode could be more finely differentiated through having its incredibly refined vocabulary for the specificity of 27 (at least) core patterns in the intrapsychic dynamics of the suffering, pursuit of the "fake cures" for a sense of ontic deficiency, , etc. Otherwise we tend to overgeneralise our own recursively realised cognitive errors and are blind to the subtleties within a multitude of others, and we tend to offer our personal psychological discoveries as generic, and teach our own adaptations, rather than offering pathways that are directly relevant to the specific forms of delusion in which individual people find themselves.
I deeply respect both of you, but I was disappointed in this episode. For me, there was very little dialogic vitality in it. Kierkegaard isn't experienced absent tension - and he positions his ideal not in alignment with Socrates, but in pained opposition to him. I was hoping John and Chris could embody this perspectival opposition and bring about this productive tension in their conversation. But Chris is so absolutely agreeable, and John so ready to translate Kierkegaard into his own Socratic concepts that very little of Kierkegaard came through here.
I'm still eager to watch the following episodes, and I hope this criticism will be taken as an attempt to be constructive and not destructive. The series itself is a gift.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Thank you
Thank you.
"Singularity has to be conquered out of another kind of universality, which is recognized to be herd existence by Nietzsche, crowd facelessness by Kierkegaard, irresponsible anonymity by Heidegger."
― Alphonso Lingis. "Phenomenology in middle age." Human Studies 2.1 (1979): 77-85.
What is John saying at 36:23? The sound cuts out.
Also, "repetition" in this way discussed is Freud's "repetition compulsion" where you're caught in that loop of behavioral patterns that you cannot see and is considered sick, but it is really riding that line between ignorance vs will.
That was great. It would be even better (constructive criticism^^) if it was a little more clear what Kierkegaard actually was more or less saying and what we are layering over him with our additional interpretations and when we are building on what he said. It would probably be double as painful to get what is happening if somebody did not read him too extensively. Sometimes with all the complicated attempts to describe them, the points get lost in the chaos.
Chris sound so much like Terrance McKenna
You guys rule.
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
Beautiful
❤!
Has anyone read _Socrates Meets Kierkegaard_ by Peter Kreeft? Does he get this?
❤
Who is your intended target audience?
You
The dreamer, not the figure in the dream which can be the scapegoat.
Quite a lot of Philip kindred comes through in this
Theories of everything posted a video with Steven Wolfram.
Really wanna get Vervaeke and Wolfram to talk together on my podcast. Same with Michael Levins.
💡💡💡💡💡
Curiosity, wonder, and imagination.
wow chris looking like a real honey bun
Comedy and tragedy dancing.
Does comedy delay the final steps hoping for reprieve?
Does tragedy accept the hope it has partnered with?
Perhaps those form a double boundary in which a process can occur, which is useful. The boundary might impose a false ceiling of limitation for a non-object mind that offers power in objectivity, the making of "objects". Within that limited space of course. Irony as a conduit thru the double wall that connects with a "larger" object.
🌚☄️❤️💫
WHO IS God? We are products of the fathers. Your mind shaped by the father before you & before him
Heres a riddle: FOREVER IMMORTAL & ALMIGHTY CREATOR-THOUGH I CANT MOVE, WHAT AM I?
A SLAVE
perhaps we are the THOUGHT 🤔 that gives GOD FREEDOM
N37⭕️
Denudes himself but doesn't take off the mask
Pathologos/repetition (think exercising agency but actually being captured/caught) (wrong orientation)
Suchness : wake up in the cave, dream, and realise it's enclosed, not what you are. Ironist realises that this is finite, and shows the finite to unveil the infinite
Socratic project is realising one's own ignorance and activating the will. Increasing consciousness opens agency of will and capacity of it
Being out of sync with Self leads to despair of illusion and material world, then despair of self, then despair of the sin itself (Christ redeems this as per kirkegaard)
Lucid dreamer -find the dreamweaver. Wagner.start to move to ground of dream and also somehow leads you to outside of dream. Depth of dream and the reality it lives in reference to
Having a relationship is iconic (ironical in that finitude leads to the infinite, depth). To recognise what is ultimate from what is not
Sin blocks anemnesis
Nice vernake about dreams. I posted all my comments before posting close your eyes until see you black and red with no squiggly lines.
No dialogue, rather serial monologues, almost no discussion about ideas. You guys would really have needed an editor.
Somewhat better after 50 minutes, but I see only intellectual fascination, no real personal relationship to Søren Kierkegaard, maybe because of lack of faith being a barrier.
And to the extent there are “points to ponder”, they should arise automatically, not having to be pointed out. It’s a bit arrogant to see it as your role to point them out.
Paradoxically, the discussion would have been LESS self absorbed if you had dared to say, this is how SK speaks to me, this is how he affects me deeply, this is where he touches my life.
DiPietro your statements are ironic. You can create poesis with nothing before it, shaped from a thought, later on you describe that develop something to what is
Ergo it was there to begin with, you just didn't realize it's existence
Therefore, you cannot use poesis without something coming before the poesis even before the thought itself. Which is shaped by the minds around us as the environment shaped around us. Everything comes before and everything comes after. Think harder diepietro.
You have a command of words. Though many of your thoughts are illogically oxymoronic
You got lost in old words and your words
Overthinking thought itself. Lol
Define: will ? DiPietro
Boy you have Christ tsirhc backwards
Johnny v. And the maestro. And I’m a fly on the wall. I love living in the future
Someone tell me the diff between imaginale and imaginary
Imaginal is imagination for the sake of grasping reality, as opposed to imaginary which is often used to escape reality.
Imaginal seems more like a noun.
Imagination implies activity.
An example I've heard John use is that the imaginary is like when you picture a sailboat in your head, while the imaginal is like when a child picks up a stick and pretends it's a sword. The imaginal is when imagination is superimposed on the world, as opposed to being fantasies that play out in one's head. Moreso than the imaginary, the imaginal becomes an opportunity to transform how we interact with the world, and how the world presents itself to us. When the Christians drink the wine and call it the blood of Christ, that is an imaginal act which allows the Christian to participate in their symbolism in a more embodied way, facilitating deeper change than could be achieved by the mere abstract consideration of that symbol.
@@lalalalalala739 Yes. John often refers to the imaginal as 'Serious Play'.
Thanks bros
DiPietro your statements are ironic. You can create poesis with nothing before it, shaped from a thought, later on you describe that develop something to what is
Ergo it was there to begin with, you just didn't realize it's existence
Therefore, you cannot use poesis without something coming before the poesis even before the thought itself. Which is shaped by the minds around us as the environment shaped around us. Everything comes before and everything comes after. Think harder diepietro.
You have a command of words. Though many of your thoughts are illogically oxymoronic
You got lost in old words and your words
Overthinking thought itself. Lol
DiPietro your statements are ironic. You can create poesis with nothing before it, shaped from a thought, later on you describe that develop something to what is
Ergo it was there to begin with, you just didn't realize it's existence
Therefore, you cannot use poesis without something coming before the poesis even before the thought itself. Which is shaped by the minds around us as the environment shaped around us. Everything comes before and everything comes after. Think harder diepietro.
You have a command of words. Though many of your thoughts are illogically oxymoronic
You got lost in old words and your words
Overthinking thought itself. Lol
I love how he’s ignoring you: I know I would. You’re like a yapping puppy.