1:23:31 BUT the metamodern perspective in fact does exclude (by virtue of still holding onto modernity and post-modernity) the traditional perspective. Hence, it finally, (because human beings finally) MUST embrace A perspective. It's sort of the urbane, educated, cultured, cosmopolitan posture that can drift in and out of catherals and shrines saying "oh yes I understand all the different perspective, one must be flexible about such things..." What holds then is sort of pluralism and romanticism. I don't see this as anything different from urbane modernists or post-modernists who enjoyed Evensong with the Anglicans for its aesthetic appeal but finally were basically a better educated, more cosmopolitan version of western cultural elites in terms of how they lived. I've yet to hear something that changes my mind about this.
I think metamodernity should mean that I can doubt all the stuff he believes in and be convinced of all the things he doubts, but I’m not sure he would agree with me. As long as I keep inventing new frames my worldview will eventually win.
Amen. Amen. As I said in an above comment, this guy sets off my spidey sense. When I listen to this guy, I think "millstone." As in "better to have a millstone...."
But which traditional view? Sam's? Calvinism? Orthodox? Hindu? Jewish? LDS? etc. There isn't a mono-tradition either. In the end you have a pluralism of traditions as well.
@@amurdo4539 I would argue that traditionalism as a generic concept describes the collection of characteristics that develops partially out of necessity and partially out of heritage. The way that a "traditional" meal is cooked comes out of the need to live off of the locally available ingredients while also participating in the aesthetic sensibilities that have been passed down. That can seem endlessly pluralistic but it turns out you can find many common threads across food cultures. The same is true in the religious domain. Conversely, now that we're living in a post/meta-modern world of technology and affluence, we feel compelled to invent new ways of eating and believing which are liberated from the constraints that anchored traditions of the past. In that way it's actually the contemporary which becomes endlessly pluralistic and the traditional which accommodates stability.
@@redtrek2153 It is obvious that we can and should learn from traditional wisdom where it is actually wise. I am sure, though, that you are perfectly happy to not anchor yourself to the traditions of slavery, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, blood letting, shamanism, voodoo, etc. In the field of medicine, I encounter groups of people that will not change how they traditionally eat even if they have horrible health issues, such as diabetes, as a result.
I'm not Christian any more but my family are fundamentalists and this way of thinking is how I've been able to put the pieces back together to relate to them again. Domicide is very real and traumatic on many levels of the psyche beyond spiritual. Thank you both, please don't stop doing the good work.
1:27:55 but still you never separated your "father of history" and "your father of faith". If I sat down with a person who embraced this division I would fear for their ability to have a viable worldview to actually engage in a shared reality.
When it comes to viable worldviews that can engage in a shared reality, I fear much more about the contradictory claims of various religious believers positing all manner of supernatural ruptures with natural laws based in special pleading for their particular religious frame than the communal enterprise of empirically-grounded science (however imperfect and flawed the latter project itself may be). In the end, only those "inside" the religious world can have a shared reality. The secular frame is the common ground and public sphere for talking between and beyond traditional religious frames.
@@tylerdavis520 More complex perspectives integrate more differentiated thought and experience. This makes them more nuanced, relational, context-sensitive, and thus less dogmatic, parochial, and narrow--i.e., more "open." At the same time, complexity is difficult, requiring more and more differentiation and integration. High complexity is thus rare. The vast majority of the universe is not that complex. The higher up the complexity stack you go (Matter, Life, Mind, Culture), the less of it there is. Ken Wilber summarized this as "more depth, less span." In that sense, the more complex perspective is the narrow path relative to the much more common perspectives employing less complexity. So, yes, the more open perspective is the path less traveled, but it is the one Christ calls us toward.
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey are we not in danger of nuancing ourselves into absurdity? For example you seem to be comfortable with a Christianity without miracles (if I’m hearing you correctly). The texts begin to lose all value when we refuse to accept what they are telling us. I admit that there is a lot of interpretation happening when people read the Bible but some things such as miracles are very black and white. This is just one good example, I’m sure I could think of many more
I've always believed that TLC truly embodies the metamodern sensibility, which is why I suggested to Paul that he check out BGD about a year ago. Essentially, from what I understand, metamodernism is a proto-synthesis that's still in it's infancy and thus has yet to be clearly articulated, as you eluded to, Sam. However, I personally believe it can be sufficiently discerned through scripture. For me the proto-trinitarianism of the gnostics comes to mind which will give you a sense of my feelings toward one aspect of Metamodernity's more imminent telos. It's my sense that there are essentially two opposing narratives stemming from this cultural shift. There are those who superimpose a modernist Darwinian framework onto metamodernism with the belief that this evolutionary process is working to progress humanity toward utopias characterized by equality and cooperation. And then there are individuals who hold to a dispensationist framework, who anticipate that humanity's condition will deteriorate as we approach the end of this age, and as a result, view the synthesis of this cultural movement with concern. If you haven't already guessed, I'm in the latter group. It's interesting to me how many people in TLC and this metamodern sphere come from a dispensationist background and then end up shifting to the opposite side, at least implicitly, with the hopes on a technological utopia i.e. community through screens being YT's telos.
Interesting insight at the end, about the shift of dispensational thinking to the other orientation. Very well may be something to that. As for superimposing a modernist framework of utopias, there's been much ink spilled in metamodern conversation spaces in distinguishing between modern utopias vs. metamodern protopias, between modern Progress and what I call metamodern "infinitesimal progress." Metamodernism is acutely aware of the failures of modern mastern narratives. It appreciates the postmodern critique while returning some semblance of directionality. To say it again here, metamodernism may be novel to many, but I wouldn't say it's "still in it's infancy and thus has yet to be articulated." I'd be tickled pink if people in TLC engaged with the written literature on the subject. I've written a book called Metamodernism. People can also check out the works of Jason Ananda Josephson Storm, Hanzi Freinacht, and the Dutch cultural theorists. There's a "there there" that I don't yet see people engaging in.
Your comments are never dull EmJay. I'm not sure which of those two camps seems to fit. I suspect I often come across as Darwinist Utopian, but I am still definitely pre-millenial. I think I have a way of fitting those two both together.
Really great observations. On the matter embodying the metamodern sensibility, I believe that such things do depend on the significance of the "symbols" at hand. If we define symbols as those things which transform unconscious potentiality into conscious actuality, then the "best" symbols are those which induce the most transformation most effectively. Peterson himself seems to embody this in the current climate (and being a Jungian he is very much aware of that). So this also means that it's uncertain where the TLC fits in: Is it comparable to a side effect of Peterson's vast influence? Or is it generating something altogether new which will eventually independently change the world? Fundamentally, however metamodernism is construed decades from now, it will be a depiction of those best symbols in similar ways that we think of postmodernism in terms of French intellectuals, strange art, social activism, etc.
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey Improvement and adaptability (protopia) vs. perfection and stability (utopia). In essence, metamodernists envision a world where individuals can coexist harmoniously, embracing their unique differences. This is in contrast to the Kingdom of God. The question that comes up for me is: can these two realities coexist, or must one prevail over the other? Yet, only one of these realities has been attested to having existed in the past (Eden). However, Revelation attests to both: a future of peace and security (a false sense of it, that is), followed by sudden destruction, leading to the establishment of God's kingdom on earth.
@@EmJay2022 If I were to draw attention to the issue that both Eden and Revelation's vision of a future kingdom of God are both imaginal constructs (i.e., valuable images, symbols, concepts, etc., but not historical entities), how does that color things? If we're talking about things "having existed," we only have protopian models--i.e., moments of relative flourishing. Wouldn't that be a surer bet to ground our aspirations in?
The bones Darwin studied really mattered for developing thought into a modern, evolutionary paradigm. The bones of Jesus matter for understanding history within that paradigm. But the Christ of faith is not limited by the concerns of that paradigm. The Christ of faith is what explains the directionality of that paradigm and all paradigms.
I appreciate more what he’s saying about the sidestep move around modernity, that’s why I consider many conversions to trad religions to be a larp. He seems to think we can’t reject the historical Jesus stuff until we’ve read as many books as him, but what if some of us are just better at detecting bullshit?
Amen. This guy sets off my spidey sense. Sorry. Reminds me of the recent discussions around luxury beliefs. How anyone could think that exposing normal everyday Christians to all this academic ivory tower BS is going to help them, in ANY WAY, in their lives, beggars belief. I don't believe we "toggle" between worship and adoration and saying out the side of your mouth--"even though this resurrection stuff--it's just for plodding pitiful fools."
@@tylerdavis520 Hi Tyler. I converted to the Catholic Church a few years ago, but to me, Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox are all Christians. I would say I'm a "mere Christian" as CS Lewis outlined in Mere Christianity. I joined the Catholic Church because of a conversion experience, but I was raised Protestant. (Still miss the Bible Study!!!) I'm not sure if others would agree with me, but it seems foundational to be a Christian to believe in the physical Resurrection, which I do, or as St. Paul said: "We are most of all to be pitied." It just doesn't make sense to me that ALL the apostles save John and 1000's of early Christians would have gone to their deaths (devoured by lions, tigers, skinned alive, smeared with tar and burned as torches, roasted on pans--hence "in the hot seat") just to perpetuate a lie.
@@ddod7236 It was hard for me to take that book seriously after stuff like this: “But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. … There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position” -C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity What I found odd was that you said amen to a comment that claimed your conversion to Catholicism was basically an exercise in live-action role playing
Three points on historical elements: -Scriptual literalism, magical book thinking and (ducks) sola scriptura build Scripture into something it is not and cannot sustain. The Gospels were written in the context of the early Church to proclaim the Good News and we theological not literal. -Something radical happened theologically in the first century. There was a new liturgy, new covanent etc. some of this was very likely perspitated by the historical Jesus and some was reflection of his followers in reaction to his death (and resurrection). - I think it is important that accounts are honest, that is intended to reflect perception (as processed by that person) not fabrications to decieve. Some other "religious texts" that will go unnamed are presented as something they are obviously not. Scripture does appear to be a first century document based on previous oral traditions, liturgy, theological teaching and perhaps earlier written accounts. The historical modern perspective can build faith if you start from the point of books being downstream of culture and institutions. Jesus called people, He did not write a book. Burdening Scripture with literalism was a theological misstep in the attempt to reform institutions.
Definitely a tendency in TLC to deride modernity and historical criticism. Brendan is right about that. From a physician's perspective I can tell you that very few of us would not like to live two hundred years ago. Many of us just don't want modernism to touch our sacred cows.
Often true. But as I mentioned in this video and others, I think that the medical field is in for a post-modern reckoning. We might start to wonder how we ever made progress in medicine at all and how we ever were able to trust our doctors.
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey Unfortunately, I don't think you will find many individuals in TLC that will be helpful in fleshing out a better metamodernist framework. Most TLCers are anti-modern in rhetoric but thoroughly modern in praxis. Modernism is essentially a swear word around these parts.
@@amurdo4539 -- Don't make the mistake (as almost everyone does) thinking that modernism = science & technology. Science and technology existed long before modernism, and it will be with us for quite some time. Modernism is not science, nor is it rational thought. Modernism is the proposition that because we have science and rational thought, we no longer need "superstitious" religion. On that point, and that point alone, modernism is a horrible, complete failure.
@@Pseudo_Boethius Depends what you mean by religion of course. The Heaven's Gate cult was a religion. I am sure you are happy using rational thought to determine that you don't need to follow that group. Many people are happy to deconstruct other people's religions as "superstitious" in the same way a modernist would but not subject their own to the same scrutiny.
Well this was a fun one! This has been, by far, the best conversation I've seen with Brendan. Even though there is a lot here I don't agree with, or have grown out of, I still appreciate his point of view. But the interview I really want to see is someone discussing with Brendan Pope Pius X's encyclical _PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS._ 🙂
1:00:59 the toggle is not lossless. We must bring our traditionalism, modernism, post modernism, and futurism, into the teleological suspension of all that is not love.
51:20 sepsis, prediction, causality, and Galileo What if the goal is to see clearly vs predict? What kind of thing wants to predict? One that is afraid and lacks the perfect faith that casts out fear.
There is a line of argument that says what Satan was really selling to Eve was the ability to know and predict the future....to know "good and evil" as God knows it....
An idea that I picked up from Pageau, though I can't remember whether he actually ever said this, is that it makes sense to ask "What do I want to be?" (sidelining the question of "which of these systems of belief is true from the God's-eye standpoint"). Like, is a Christian a good thing to be? Then maybe you should be one. Your section about what people want from clinical trials reminded me of that.
It depends on what kind of Christianity one embraces: fundamentalist/literalist with all its phobias, hate and bigotry, mainline Protestant, progressive, traditional Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, Process or meta modern? Each with a different anthropology, focus and telos. Makes a big difference IMO.
@@RichardCosci exactly. And we should also define thoroughly what we mean by “good” when we ask is it good to be a Christian? Is it also good to be a Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim? The scriptures would say Jesus way or the highway
Gentleman, thank you both for this interview and the gracious manner you conducted this in. Sam, I admire your openness, sharpness, and generosity in doing these. Brandon, thank you for arriculating what I think some of us with post-Christian persuasions in TLC has suspected, namely, a lack of more robust engagement with the implications of modern historical critical studies of the Jewish/Christian scripture. I didnt intend for that to sound arrogant, and I apologize if im overgenralizing with that statement. But, in listening to how committed Christians talk about their faith in this space, I sensed that topic was amiss.
That’s just great. I was just recovering from a historical criticism/biblical studies kick when this video showed up. Another sleepless night for the neurotic history major.
This wonderful dialogue reminded me of: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." (John 14:12). I was also reminded of Bulgakov's treatment of evolving christologies in "The Lamb of God". Christianity aside, metamodernism sounds closely related to the concept of dialectical thinking, which according to Vervaeke (in the paper "The Science of Wisdom in a Polarized World") is a crucial part of wisdom. Put shortly, dialectical thinking is that way of thinking which tries to reconcile universalistic (e.g. "This is the truth") and relativistic thinking (e.g. "This is my truth"). It also tries to bridge different forms/systems of thinking (e.g. your political and religious worldview) in the effort of bettering them through mutual informing. Basseches is the author they quote in the paper and he has an interesting old book ("Dialectical thinking and adult development") and new paper ("Dialectical Thinking: A Proposed Foundation for a Post-modern Psychology") you can read online. Cheers!
The title of Servetus's book was "Christianismi Restitutio". The restitution/restoration of Christianity. Directly contrasted with the popular buzzword of "reformation" used by Calvin.
Hi, thanks. I only upload the Metamodern Spirituality podcasts to Spotify, and most of my recent videos haven't been that. Will upload the podcast episodes I'm late on, though. :)
21:20 I think that empirical evidence is a misnomer. Radical empiricism does not lay on a meta narrative. Scientism does that. Edit: 21:55 yes “measured, mathematical, mechanistic” See Rupert sheldrake
What's that line? "The gospel should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"? Or, as an even more authoritative voice once said: "“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” Or those calls to deny yourself and take up your cross...? To gain your life by losing it...? I don't think Jesus called people to a particularly restful ease as Christians.
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey -- But then there is this: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. *For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”*
@@BrendanGrahamDempseynow we’re getting into the debate of Jesus vs Paul, it would seem. Many claim their gospels are one and the same, while others play them against one another with convincing arguments
1:03:35 “Obviously, the Blindspot of orthodoxy is that heresy is often right…” Tradition and apocalypse. Or neo-traditionalist. Always becoming. Further up and further in…
@@Pseudo_Boethius yes. What would be the predictive model of how often heresy was correct? And again, this is all in the propositional frame. If one takes heresy as more fundamental, as BEING schismatic… Christ unites/holds together. AntiChrist divides/splits apart. Whoever embodies AntiChrist is a heretic. You can be right and be wrong or be wrong and be right. This is playing on the superficiality of propositional tyranny. Propositions are not unimportant or irrelevant, but they are not primary. Love and sacrifice are. Faith, hope, love, the greatest is love.
@@transfigured3673 I would very much like that! Don’t know the best way to reach you, but my email is on my channel description. Also Luke and Chad have my number.
Sorry, but I've been around for a while, and he sounds a bit new age to me. Nothing new under the sun here, I would say. That being said, I enjoyed the conversation and the host's willingness to interview a diverse group of points of view. To me the resurrection matters, a lot, not sure what the point of following christ is if there was no resurrection.
46:25 - 46:45 “we are in the system we are studying…” It’s synergistic epistemology or something. But academic and systematic, not personal. I was thinking right here that meta-modernism sounds a lot like personalism, but impersonal
@@lafamigliabazzani499 -- "Bags of DNA" sounds so pedestrian. I would far prefer the analogy of a nice, vintage leather briefcase of DNA. Of course there's a bit of agency and personhood involved. Just how much? Hard to say. But the fact that not everyone thinks exactly like I do must account for something.
Traditional Christianity is not equivalent to confessional/propositional Christianity. It’s just not. Come at me with your false representations of what I’m saying.
While useful in transcending inferior narratives, the Now is ultimately antithetical to story. The Now is an aspect of the “story of the soul” but shouldn’t attempt to replace it. Tolle misses this.
@@ctucker1129 hmmm. Good pushback. I think one can still live in the Now, but in a Sermon on the Mount kinda way. Not holding onto the narratives. Have expectations, just let go of the results kind of thing. Willingness to die. To suffer for others.
I would say, enter into the Now for the purpose of going deeper into the story of the soul. Not as a final destination. The parable of the widow seeking justice applies here. Tune into the feminine within seeking justice so the feminine doesn’t cause you to make a home in the Now.
43:00 I like this explanation and is I think one of the valuable things that the TLC has been talking about/doing. The new atheist era was arguing with religion in modern terms. Then figures like Peterson, Vervaeke and Pageau started showing people that there was value in the traditional frame while trying to avoid the total relativism of the post-modern view (but still retaining some of its useful insights). PVK and TLC started in that milieu. Sorting out what belongs where, but in a way that values the relational above the propositional.
@@tylerdavis520 The problem is that because there is no ‘view from nowhere’, we are all using some default frame and frame hierarchy. Trying to discuss and think about these ideas is simply being intentional and thoughtful about which ones we are using in our lives.
@@tylerdavis520 this is a mental model built out of necessity due to the collapse of meaning related to postmodern relativism. In a way everybody consuming content or theology or ideas/philosophy are building out hierarchies of value and meaning now. The question is “do this consciously or unconsciously?” I would say BGM is attempting to help foster a new meta religion hierarchy; I would say, as a person how puts his historical Christian faith high on the stack, take the value hierarchy you have constructed, out of the deconstructed rubble of postmodern relativism, and submit yourself/myself to an existing institution/hierarchy and give your/my life to the work of building strength of faith, hope, and love in your self, family, community, “the world” with in which ever human hierarchy you submit yourself to, ultimately stating submitted to Christ as the ultimate authority.
49:05 this was really helpful talking about a perspective that contains other perspectives. Makes me think of being able to acknowledge exclusivist denominational perspectives while having a more ecumenical perspective myself
@@lukefreeperson I mean it tends to unravel into absurdity, doesn’t it? The ecumenical crowd reaching out their hand to the orthodox priest as he yells “heretic!” in their faces
@@tylerdavis520 yes, but is there any other way if you believe Orthodox Christianity is true and yet you aren't Orthodox yourself? I'm very much wrestling with these issues myself - seeing truth in beauty in the multiplicity of Christian expression yet having to find a particular place to call home
In regard to the question of, what is meta-modernism? I like what Mark L? Said in a recent live stream. My paraphrase is that as long as we are still using the term modern whether it be postmodern, premodern, post postmodern or Metamodern we are probably still well within the spirit of modernity.
is it just me or did this meta-modern term sprung very recently, kinda out of nowhere? I didn't hear nothing about this until very recently. and yet everything he's talking about is kinda old news in the TLC, so what this guy Brendan brings kinda falls flat for me, it's a bit of old news and yet he's almost trying evangelize or something.
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey by the way, lots in the TLC are in a very similar place as you, stay here and you'll be in good company. right now you're doing the academic "discussion thing" with the one on one debate things, which many around here do, but try popping up in one of luke's streams or some one else's (grail country), that's where the good stuff happens. if you get on a stream with mark get ready for a fight thou.
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey seems like youtube lost the response that I left you, here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rxrtZuyPvFw.html this is the first discussion of PVK and pageau. there's really no one place that I can point you to, all videos in TLC are about this stuff, knowing a bit of postmodernism is the most basic thing around here, because most people here were modernist then discovered post-modernism (or something) and had a meaning crisis and washed up on these shores, and leaving it behind is the first thing people do, TLC is all about finding something new after postmodernism, that's why paul calls it an estuary. if you don't have time to watch thousand of pvk video just look for the PVK/Vervaeke/Pageu videos and you'll get the basic stuff.
I appreciate Brendan's attempt - but traditional Christians cannot give up modernist exclusivity. They just can't do it - and this is why it will continue to die.
The key to this whole thing…seriously, is 39:35 “I’d you do that with integrity…” The hard problem of all perception is the disregard of the perceiver. The person is the locus of all Meaning. Edit: 40:00 Sam, your question of what should you want is about the integrity of the person. Vs individual vs corporate (herd immunity) vs corporate/market vs whatever. The harmony of all.
When using the term modern we don’t actually mean modern so we adhere prefixes ad infinitum because we must permanently orient our vision of the world from modernity.
1:01:54 “ The traditional Orthodox view is often one that is unable to take other perspectives…” Sam, if I wasn’t in your consciousness Congress here…I yet have work to do.
1:26:20 this! Progressive revolution is a powerful tool (toggle). In Judaism, while not mainstream, there are still orthodox opinions that integrate this thought process
1:27:07 I mean all I hear is Maimonides and Rashi - ה׳ אלהינו ה' אחד means, The Lord who is now our God and not the God of the other peoples of the world, He will at some future time be the One (sole) ה׳, as it is said, (Zephaniah 3:9) “For then I will turn to the peoples a pure language that they may all call upon the name of the Lord
1:00:10 "For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." - Karl Marx, The German Ideology
The whole prostitute and tax collector bit is kinda played out, isn’t it? Obviously step 1, the prostitute has to stop prostituting, right? Or what are we doing here? Unfortunately I’m leaning towards another “lost soul” on this one. Which isn’t an insult, because I’m a card-carrying member of that club :/
@@ddod7236I can’t be too critical because I’ve gone down a lot of these same roads. I’m still quite confused. A major difference between us is that I’m not currently looking for company
Oh, come on! There is NO SUCH THING as "post-modern science." Post-modernism is the antithesis of science and knowledge in general. Very disappointing conversation. I expected better.
That’s really encouraging Brendan and , it’s very much so invoking Peterson/Pagaeu influence that I have mapped onto church/pluralism/meta space here. And the addition of your voice here helped me bring more clarity to that idea and understanding for myself as well.
