Are any of you guys getting into deep dialogos with tarot? I've been messing around with it as a complete neophyte and in a few months have realized these cards are powerful and I'm kicking myself for only finding them at 43. Anyone else finding wisdom here? I'd love John's opinion on them. I'd also love John's opinion on hermetic texts in general, especially since he has a connection to the archetype. I hope everyone finds this well and well intentioned. Love you guys! 🙏🏼✌🏼

I'm a recently deconverted evangelical who is now agnostic/atheist and I've been finding a lot of value in the Awakening from the Meaning Crisis podcast. This podcast, along with a content from Alex O'Connor, Paul Vanderklay, Robert Sapolsky, and others, as well as my own experience in Christian contexts has brought me to believe that religion is an extremely powerful false but adaptive belief that provides benefits (not entirely without costs) to its practitioners.

I've been wrestling with Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) (See Here) which seems to be a formidable challenge against the agnostic/atheist worldview. Most responses to the EAAN argue that, in general, true beliefs are more adaptive than false beliefs. However, I've been encountering many studies and articles that seem to demonstrate that many beliefs/systems, the chief of which being religion, exist which appear to be adaptive and false. This calls into question the proposal that true beliefs are more adaptive than false beliefs in general.

Considering this seeming contradiction, how would you respond to the EAAN?

Looking forward to your insights! (and please suggest other subreddits that may be a good place to post this question, figured folks on here would be understanding)

John did a recent Jordan Peterson podcast episode where he said his 1st AFtMC book would be available for purchase on September 29, and I still haven't been able to find it anywhere (Amazon, his website, or otherwise).

Does anyone know if he's given an update on the book? Really looking forward to reading it.

I groove just fine with most of what I've heard from Vervaeke, but I need clarification on this idea that mythic truth is not metaphor, or not "just" metaphor. Both Peterson and Vervaeke have puzzled me with this. Vervaeke variously describes it as metaphor and also as transcending that category. Peterson says things like "truer than true", going as far as to place it in its own category of truth. Yet I can't see what about it brings it out of metaphor in a unique way. Can metaphor not be perennial, universal, powerful, deeply human, vastly insightful, endlessly applicable to life, etc? Is it just a way of saying it's a really special kind of metaphor for those reasons? What is really being said? Thanks for your time.

[Edit: I should mention that I'm asking about Vervaeke's framework rather than how it works for believers of a particular religion. Vervaeke specifies that it's not literal.]

[Edit edit: Just heard Vervaeke stating and explaining that "symbol is not just metaphor", which clarifies for me that this is a terminology thing. I would think of symbol and metaphor as synonymous.]

What's going on here? Any answer is appreciated.

More specifically, can someone explain:

The philosophical differences between the two

Cog sci/ neuroscience divergences or congruence

Beef that John has seems personal, like Harris Is worse than wrong

Just wondering if anybody lives in the Salt Lake area. While an online community is hunky-dory in many ways, some in person interaction would be welcome, and ideas on building a community here might be up for discussion. It’s such a desert with all the theological and political din that seems to pervade every possible venue like sand.

Recently finished doing research at the History of Hermetic Philosophy and Related Currents Department at the University of Amsterdam using 4E Cognition and Conceptual Metaphor approaches to explore practices of Ritual Magic. The main focus is the embodiment and extension of metaphor through imaginal and somatic techniques as a means of altering consciousness to reconceptualize the relationship of self and world (agent and arena). The hope is to point toward the rich potential of combining the emerging fields of study in 4E Cognition and Esotericism (something which Vervaeke's student Juensung Kim is doing...you can check out a conversation between them on John's youtube page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkBqTO747a4 )

My Research:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382061052_Experiencing_the_Elements_Self-Building_Through_the_Embodied_Extension_of_Conceptual_Metaphors_in_Contemporary_Ritual_Magic

Hi,

I made a device or lens that can create corrective focusing for noetic perception/the breath similar to how glasses correct light for visual perception.

Here is a short video explaining it

https://youtu.be/icKNcFPPIMU?si=D4HfHXVhSXLmnFnn

Here is a video that goes over what a session is like

https://youtu.be/UIEHNG2UsgM?si=tV3KzMlJiVColXWH

Both are fairly short. Here is a short essay of one way to look at the theory behind the technique.

The theory is simple and has allowed me to use water in a manner similar to a classical machine or lens. It acts as a pressure fulcrum on the breath.

The breath can be corrected using very gentle pressure if applied systemically with perfect balance. Not so difficult(haha). Correct breath requires a sensitive balance of tension and pressure exactly like the eye requires an identical balance to see a clear picture.

The tension and pressure dictates how light moves through the eye and thus what the photoreceptor sees. The breath is causing an identical focusing of other energies moving through our body. These energies are focused as they travel through conductive or transparent parts of the body and are directed to or detected by a sensory systems in a manner similar to the eye or ear but for different frequencies and mediums of energy. This is the range of Noetic sight and perception.

Improper breath unfocuses perception just like improper eye tension unfocuses vision.

Improper body tension and pressure distorts the breath like improper eye tension distorts the eye and the activity of the cornea.

To say it as generally as possible, this distortion in the breath impairs noetic vision which is accomplished via sensitivity to the breath. Certain tensions, transparencies, translations, and absorptions are accomplished in all areas of the body in a multitude of dimensions.

Distortion of the body/breath can make these dimensions so over-near-focused fuzzy as to be invisible or so far away as to be on a different planet or dimension. Correct or balanced vision places everything right here, which everyone proves to themselves by feeling it; all right here as close as the hand is.

But even with that direct realization the actual noetic vision can still be blind just as much as normal vision can be blind…and it’s a huge help to see things clearly, no matter the level of direct felt realization.

Restoring correct tension/pressure in the breath is normally very difficult, because the person is often imaginally blind or distorted in the very areas where they have tension. The exercises and beliefs that help them are inherently unbalanced. All this corrective unbalanced action being a practice they undertake in total blindness. Applying pressure to them in the way they need is also somewhat inappropriate for many relationship types. It’s also supposed to happen naturally and it’s somewhat icky to intervene.

The pressure from just a few inches to a few feet water, when systemically applied to the totally submerged body, corrects the breath exactly how corrective lenses correct vision. It also solves a lot of problems other methods have in terms of how they temporarily restore or correct vision.

This can radically enhance the noetic vision of anyone. And it’s not even “therapy”. The people already doing well will easily become miraculous. Zero propositions.w

guys i have heard that "awakening from the meaning crisis " by vervaeke is a great playlist . i wan't to go through but i prefer reading over watching lectures . is there some book or any other resource which i should look into . also i'm 19 and don't have a strong background in philosophy(i have nietszche , camus , plato a little bit ) so suggest me something which is not extremely complex

I really like john vervakes work. I feel like however there is alot to learn and as a slow reader i would love to find some people in the community that i could practice dialog with to get some different perspective on philosophy and cognative science. so if you are interested in seeing more of my work or talking with me please reply or DM me!

I watched him speak about this topic but I didn't quite get his definition of "intelligence". I already understand rationality and wisdom but I'm not able to get a grip of the concept of intelligence, especially according to Vervaeke. Also, it'd be really helpful if you could explain how it connects to "problem finding" and other things he says that are related to intelligence. Also, what he thinks about creativity and how he relates it with intelligence.

And stuff like this:

"Varvaeke proposes that exemplary problem finders can generate a "problem nexus" - identifying core problems that, if solved, would impact many other existing problems."

https://youtu.be/yT5Zpf5WHjg

A book about the specifically Socratic approach to ethics (as opposed to Aristotelian, Stoic, etc) that followers of Vervaeke might be interested in. Published by Oxford University Press and written by Paul Woodruff, one of the top Plato translators.

https://academic.oup.com/book/44868

The abstract:

Virtue ethics can be practical if we give it a new start, working from Socrates’ approach to ethics as represented in Plato. This approach is more promising than that of most recent virtue ethicists, who begin from Aristotle. It is also more practical than modern ethical theories. Socrates asks us to nurture the moral health of our souls all our lives, whereas Aristotle teaches us to acquire virtues as traits. Traits are not reliable, however, and false confidence in one’s virtue is a major cause of moral error and the moral injury that results from error. I must never think with any certainty that I have a virtue. It is especially dangerous for me to think that I have the wisdom or moral knowledge that would keep me on the right path. Socrates sets an example by recognizing his ignorance through self-examination and by making that recognition a cornerstone of human wisdom. But Socrates does not explain how we can seek virtue when we do not know for sure what it is. This book goes beyond what we know of Socrates in order to show how we can seek virtue without having knowledge. Using real-life examples, some of them from warfare, the book shows how we can nurture our souls and avoid moral injury so far as possible. The outcome of a life on this Socratic model is beauty of soul and a special kind of happiness.

The above link also has abstracts for specific chapters.

There is also info here: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/living-toward-virtue-9780197672129?cc=us&lang=en&

John's new course was introduced today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eSCIJVPQ2w

I'm curious if anyone is considering the course and why or why not? Note that the course has 3 increasingly more expensive tiers or payment levels from self-study to Dialogos.

I recently heard Vervaeke refer to ally work in one of his conversations but I'm having an impossible time locating the reference now. Does anyone know where he discusses this?