Ethan you freaky little genius! Thanks for going in and attempting the languaging! Now, all of this… yes… and then we need to discuss the real Reality of the Imaginal in amongst it all. Plus the neuroscience of the feeling of knowing… insula, acc, tpj, etc. 🧠🧠🧠 John! So good! Thank you. Esp the “embodying a symphony of sages”. 💋💋💋 So happy to be a small part of this juicy mango meal. Lotsa love 🙏🏽💋❤️
I'm so glad you included the craft of acting in this discussion. My experience as an actor deeply informs my ability to inhabit other perspectives, and I am increasingly convinced that acting is in fact a dialogical practice, hidden within the joy of collaborative, embodied storytelling.
Thx JV, I've shared THIS, as I do so MUCH of your other content (as well as the adjacent content of your Meaning Making Bros.' good stuff, along with caption as follows: Developing an Ecology of Practices, sets of holistic Mind, Body, & Spirit, as well as finding well grounded purpose, meaning, and connection. Here's WAZZUP with that in 30 minutes or so:
My goodness this was beautiful! The elucidation around participating Agape as a facilitator to transcendence was wonderful and deeply resonated with many of the things I have found in trying to engage agape in medical practice. John you have been on fire! This foray into ritual has been so rich for me as I have been internalizing your articulations
@@johnvervaeke heay man👍 areyouevergonna do the good thing or willyou remain thisway till the day you die? Either way i wil not forgive and wish you good luck👍
Really happy to see you back Ethan, for those of you who haven't seen their first dialog between Ethan, Tamaki and John, please go back and have a look, it was beautiful. As you explore letting someone else inhabit your person to try and better understand the perspective from other, or combined synthesis of multiple points and aspects, it made me think of Humphrey Bogart in the Maltese Falcon, when near their near the end, and Humphrey tells each of the players who they were and how they ended up that room together. Thank you both Ethan and John for another illuminating conversation, Ethan your enthusiasm and exploration of ideas really seems to animate John's thoughts. Cool ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-orpqXNw3R0w.html
This is fascinating. This is how I've imagined religions became what they are and also explains the variations in the orientation and the practices of all those religions as well as the constant forward movement of the religious endeavour symbolism>< ritual practices>
Thank you this was a lovely conversation and yes acting and the building of a role includes most of what was expressed. I really hope one day you can include Zuma Puma, who teaches ritual through clown. I know you will be amazed.
The symphony of sages is a very beautiful idea, admitting that we are all sages at first XD. This is a bit of what I like in a conversation too, seing a new POV in action, integrated and being played in front of my eyes with which I can discuss, merged with the fact that I try to understand what I am up to in the mean time. Nice thumbnail by the way
Reminds me of an obscure concept I encountered online, when researching IFS, called "Internal Double Crux" (itself derived from "Double Crux"). It was like IFS for certain non-neurotypocals it seemed, but I didn't go to deep into it.
I know it's easy to overlook John, but please keep up with the Thumnails. It's the little things that appeal to the eye that attract people to hear what they need to hear. Also, perhaps trim out the very beginning (the first 0.2 seconds or so) where you see the two people joining the call to make it seem more professional. Good luck and much love
Wow, this was fascinating. When you were talking about dreaming of meeting someone who you know, but encountering them as a stranger, this reminded me of an epiphany I just had. I was having a dream and something happened which surprised me in the dream...Which made me curious how I can be surprised by things I'm dreaming. If I'm the source, how do I not know it's coming...Where does this ability to be surprised come from?
John, you are syncretic AF. I now wonder if these esoteric arts were lost in modernity or we are emerging into a new paradigm. That is, rediscovery or creating a new dimension to creation via kinetic cognition aka dba martial arts/dance/flailing/finding/feeling/fleeing G*d. "Are we here yet, Daddy>" Thank You. Keep sparring with Knowings.
Technology for wisdom? Hope we don't get so super aware that we forget how to breathe without deliberate effort..... OK. My big question is: can and should everything be consciously cultivated? Is there a limit where it turns into the opposite of intention?Is it a sacrilege to ask this and if it is, why?
Definitely not sacrilegious to ask this at all. In the previous chat with Ethan and John, they go through the ideas and practices, and amongst them is the notion of “play”. I don’t want to butcher the idea and what not so pls go check out the chat! And I find this question regarding “must everything be consciously cultivated” interesting - I have my own answer which I could discuss with you but please go check out the video first and I’ll be waiting with my perspective should you wish to engage! Many blessings!😊
Yes, to augment the natural process of gathering the map stuff and processing it into feeling, and so the openness and curiosity of coming from agape increases those facets gathered. The rational regards the newly gathered.
Let's try to be logical, analytical, rational. The heart pumps blood; it has no passions. Neither spirit nor a spiritual realm exist. "Spirit" is a fictional derivative of cognition/emotion, and a "spiritual realm" is a fictional derivative of the mental realm. If someone is intellectually and psychologically equipped to substantially or even fully engage his/her mind/self, he/she will do so via L.A.R. thinking. If people are not suchly equipped, they have to create a mythos via which to engage.
@@carlkenneth2868 No, you contradict yourself. One things is to not comprehend metaphor, I'll let it pass even if it comes very close to disproving your own point. But I'm not all that sure that you really are all that "LAR," as you call it. But you mention emotions as real. But then say that there is nothing mental that can't be understood by logical, analytical or rational thought. Primary psychopaths are well known to be, at the level of potential at least, capable of all those things. They are as such fully capable of cognitive empathy, in both theory and practice. But if if a person has emotional empathy it is by definition not a primary psychopath. The same could be said for the emotional component of compassion. I'm afraid that is like saying a permanently blind person can fully understand the subjective experience of seeing a certain color (or "qualia," to be precise), unless he lacks LAR.
