I’m glad John is enjoying his the manifestation of his influence while he’s here because I know that his ideas will inspire so many people in in the future. People don’t understand the importance of his ideas but they will eventually...
Vervaeke’s four ways of knowing is a footnote to Heidegger’s, and, more explicitly, Wittgenstein’s approach to meaning that was worked through around 90 years ago. Both developed a social view of mind, a view that mind is embodied and embedded in wider processes, a critique of scientism and materialism, a deep analysis of the ‘sickness of a time’. Wittgenstein identified that we build understanding by criss-crossing the terrain using four aspects: meaning as use, meaning as rule-following, meaning as custom, and meaning as physiognomy, but without the intention of creating a theory, all of which is at least eighty years old (see Finch, 1995). Therefore, what Vervaeke is claiming to be a new approach grounded in cognitive science had already been mapped out in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. Why does Vervaeke, when interviewed, never flag up these influences? Why has he not seem to have read Wittgenstein and Wittgensteinian philosophy given that V's expertise is in philosophical psychology, the very field that W. specialised in?
John's work is very intellectual and at times difficult to access without devoting hours of time listening to his lectures. This is a clear and succinct breakdown in less than 7 minutes of one of his key ideas. Well done!
This is really good! This is the best video I've seen so far breaking down John's 4 kinds of knowing. Striving Vs Settling in. That distinction was specifically really useful.
Thanks. Glad you like it. Striving vs settling in is my sense of it from my work and my life - I’m not sure if John speaks about it like that. Hope you enjoy the other videos on the channel.
Thanks for making this video man! I was trying to explain the four types to a friend of mine and wanted to link him to a video explaining it when I found this. Great work!
Thank you for reminding me about John Vervaeke’s work!! Spent many an hour enjoying and learning from him on RU-vid, and I’m about due for a refresher. Keep it up the great work, Rich.
While watching this I found great similarities to the Greek classical four elements philosophy and your four types of knowing philosophy! 🌪️: Propositional knowing, Air = Mind, thoughts, ideas 🌎: Procedural knowing, Earth = To the material World and Its cycles. 💧: Perspectival knowing, Water = Emotional spectrum 🔥: Participatory knowing, Fire = Instinct, will power, vitality. Thank you so much for imparting your wisdom! 🧙🏽♂️
@@richardwatkins7981 There most definitely is! It just sifting through all the new age bs and then trying to understand the original message and mindset of older generations. What's interesting to me is how more or less every culture came to use the elemental system or at least the symbolism of the elements in Nature to symbolise our understanding of our Humanity & the Universe.
@@richardwatkins I do lymphatic health excerise videos that help people with efficient physical, mental and emotional clarity. I'd love to know what you get from them 😀 I'd also love a chat with you because I feel we've got progressive ideas that will innovate the world. An bi-directional interview-style video comes to mind!
I enjoyed watching this and I appreciate your time an effort in creating this. Please continue to make content that illustrates ways to apply these deep philosophical ideas. Thanks @Rich
Great job, Rich! Excellent summary. I'm trying to relate/integrate the 4Ps of knowing with the 4Es of 4E cognitive science (+ the 2 more from John). Can you recall if he's done this anywhere? Thanks.
Interesting. I hadn't thought to integrate them and (to me) they don't seem straightforwardly linked.... perhaps we could say that a broader and fuller view of cognition (4E) is a way to move us past an addiction to the "Propositional" way of knowing. But the 4Es seem all related and interwoven. Our cognition is related to the fact that we exist in situations (embedded), are influenced by our whole biological system (embodied), use tools (extended) and understand by doing things (enacted). And, for example our procedural knowing (eg our ability to ride a bike or play tennis) is related to ALL of these 4E factors - and id say the same of our ability to inhabit a perspective (perspectival knowing) or our "at home"ness in particular situations (participatory knowing). But then, thinking it through for the first time as i write, even our ability to grasp propositions seems related to all of the 4Es too. What was your take? Where is your line of enquiry going?
I think the net product of applying these four kinds of knowing, would be operating with common sense. When considering the medical issue that is destroying our preferred way of life, 1) I familiarized myself with the workings of the immune system on all levels. 2).I listened to the experts’ on how each one perceived the problem at hand. 3) I evaluated the risk/reward of the various solutions. 4) I settled on the most practical solution for my situation. 5) I will issue a liability notice on anyone who tries to impose a solution in accord with my personal decision. Problem solved.
@@richardwatkins ah what a wonderful journey to have embarked on, congratulations! You’ve already planted your seeds and it’s clear you can create quality work. So I’ll be here if you choose to continue! ❤️
Procedural: Know What Procedural: Know How Perspectival: Know When Participatory: Know Through/Know With Are these valid descriptions? Also, I invite everyone to watch Vervaeke's Awakening From the Meaning Crisis. Really expanded my way of viewing reality
Hey thanks for the comment. Definitely agree re John Vervaeke’s other stuff. On your list, i think there’s lots of ways of seeing it and describing it that work for different purposes... For me I really resonated with know what and know how. The other two don’t seem to me as easy to headline and I found it harder when making the video. For “know when” I take you to mean “know when different things are appropriate” which is a nice way of looking at it - and I see that as one aspect of perspectival knowing but not the whole of it - for me presence gives you a full seeing that isn’t just for that purpose. Thinking through your list I wonder whether you could say that perspectival as a deeper /fuller kind of “know what” and participatory as a deeper/fuller kind of “know how”...
Nothing is absolute - all is relative. Especially, perspectival and participatory knowledge will overlap and merge and complement one another. The boundaries are clearer and more readily grasped when contrasting propositional and procedural categories.
Yes, i see it that these four ways of knowing are DISTINCT (you can distinguish each way of knowing) but not SEPARATE (as you say, they merge and overlap - or as JV might say "interpenetrate") - thanks for the comment
This is wonderful Rich!! Very clear, great pace, deep, rich and very useful summary of John’s 4 Ps, I love and go back to this often! Thank you for the gift!
Vervaeke’s four ways of knowing is a footnote to Heidegger’s, and, more explicitly, Wittgenstein’s approach to meaning that was worked through around 90 years ago. Both developed a social view of mind, a view that mind is embodied and embedded in wider processes, a critique of scientism and materialism, a deep analysis of the ‘sickness of a time’. Wittgenstein identified that we build understanding by criss-crossing the terrain using four aspects: meaning as use, meaning as rule-following, meaning as custom, and meaning as physiognomy, but without the intention of creating a theory, all of which is at least eighty years old (see Finch, 1995). Therefore, what Vervaeke is claiming to be a new approach grounded in cognitive science had already been mapped out in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy.
Thanks for the comment - I'm mid-way through my second run at Philosophical Investigations after studying it a decade ago. I think we might be able to agree that for the last 70 years people have been extremely busy NOT getting Wittgenstein? I say bringing some of those ideas into a form people can grasp and use is good work well done. As for what counts as "new", Wittgenstein would no doubt have interesting reflections on that.
@@richardwatkins On not getting Wittgenstein: most people won't and don't, but someone like Vervaeke who works as an academic and claims to be both a practitioner of epistemic and ethical virtue should have 'got' Wittgemstein given W's major concern is with philosophical psychology. Anybody claiming to promote a new paradigm of thinking and being, as V. does, who hasn't bothered to 'get' Wittgenstein should not be taken seriously. Furthermore, why does Vervaeke, when doing discussions and interviews, never acknowledge that he is just stating things that W. and H. had already worked out around 90 years ago? I suggest you read W. through Finch (95) and Ray Monk's (97 - I think) intellectual biography: Ludwig Wittgenstein - The Duty of Genius. Fergus Kerr's (1986, etc.,) work is also very good, plus many, many more. On common features between W. and H. read Braver )2014), and of course Dreyfus & Taylor (2015).
You would like JV to more publicly credit W and H? I don’t have much to say on that but I hear you. What this 4ps model does for me is bring an incredibly accessible way-in to sophisticated thought about ways we know things and for me that’s valuable.
@@richardwatkins My concern is that in interviews JV downplays the origins of his thinking, which he does make more explicit in his lectures; however, he fails to grasp the significance of Wittgenstein. I sense he has never read W. or Wittgensteinian philosophy and thus remakes in his own image what Wittgenstein has already mapped out. In a recent exchange (today on this channel) I had with JV, he stated that he had concentrated on H. because of his concern with nihilism, which wasn't the case with W. To which I sent him this quote from W. : "The sickness of a time is cured by an alteration in the form of life of human beings, and it was possible for the sickness of philosophical problems to get cured only through a changed mode of thought and of life." --Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics Does this sound like W. isn't concerned with nihilism? You can read the exchange I had with JV under his comment: "some wonderful things hers'", which is his generic way of responding to all comments on all the RU-vid channels on which he features. Flattery will get you everywhere, especially on RU-vid. Just now, he stopped communicating with me because he thinks I'm being 'insulting'. In this case, the accusation of an insult insulates someone from intellectual and ethical accountability.
John Vervaekeneeds to have his clips channel. Between the 90 min of Vervaeke lecture and a 6 min summary clip, people will inevitably choose a 6min clip.🙂👍
This is amazing! I referred to this concept clumsily in my podcast with Vickie Pham, and now I can put this in my show notes! So clear and concise! More please!
Thank you so much for saying that and referencing - did you see the other one on JV? Here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jWLUVyMthkU.html
This might now be the go-to summary that I share with people to explicate Four P Knowing. With deep thanks for the way in which you've bottled all of this up, Rich. Great summary here of one corner of John Vervaeke's work!
Great, I was looking to learn more about perspectival and participatory knowing and here you have such a great video that sends people in the right direction. Your tone and pace were great. Really matching the content! Cheers, keep up!
Thanks Simon - there’s other stuff up already and in the pipeline ☺️ on JV specifically I want to look at his transparency/opacity shift - seeing vs seeing through
@@richardwatkins Well, I am currently writing my dissertation on predictive processing and disruptive strategies like meditation that relax the grip we have on our self-model. I think this ties in nicely with four kinds of knowing since therapy is often a way of ganing insight into a different waysof knowing. So possibly something on insight and meditation (if you are interested in that). Likewise, this also ties in with Johns idea of attentional scaling (not sure if its his) which talks about attention (precision weighting in PP model) flowing in and out between the part/whole of a problem, and how we need this kind of process in problem solving. So theres that too! And again, being and having by Eric Fromm! - also ties in with yur video. Theres a whole video just there. If any more come to mind ill send them over.
@@nickpharo5300 i love all these nick... thanks for sharing suggestions and id love to read that dissertation. I'll have a dig around the suggestions. I didn't know the term attentional scaling but the movement from gestalt/whole parts connects to my work over last decade in organisations - it's a big part of what people mean when they say "strategic" thinking. hope you enjoy the other videos on the channel too. Do share what you find useful.
@@richardwatkins no problem! Ill be sure to check out the rest of your vids. And I subscribed so will see future ones too. Yeh the attentional scaling is part of Vervaeke's insight episode related to gestalt/features. You might look at work by Michael Polanyi for that - The Tacit Dimension. Can get a pdf free on pdfdrive.com. Perhaps ill send you the diss after im finished. Anyway, apart from that, all the best Richard.
Good stuff. Someone really aught to make a YT channel clipping bits of knowledge and revelation from John's teachings and putting them in a palatable and entertaining format. Wish I enjoyed doing stuff like that more or I absolutely would. Just combing through his books and videos blows my mind every time within a minute or two.
