by Andrea Elizabeth
to hear science respected by an intellectual Christian Creationist. In this case, Stephen Meyer.
This is my favorite conversation in the Intellectual Dark/Deep Web with a female conversation partner. Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia are close seconds. Meet Chloe Valdary, founder of The Theory of Enchantment. (watch the trailer in the link after the convo below.)
This conversation, hosted by Bret Weinstein, bravely discusses plurality and the accomplishments of separate cultures.
I thought Mr. Weinstein asked some very brave questions, and that Ms. Valdary was very impressive and forthright. True humility is knowing your own strengths and weaknesses. I loved this conversation so much because she is not as much of an academic as Mr. Weinstein, but held her own very well. I think Mr. Weinstein is more impressed with the western intellectual tradition than she (or I) am, not that she isn’t impressed, but you can tell she sees it as different circles, not necessarily hierarchical circles, and not unnecessary circles. I think he sees some circles as more necessary than others, not that the people within them are more necessary.
Which brings me to the Lunar Landing, as they discussed it. Mr. Armstrong himself said that it was one large leap for (all of) mankind. They discussed whether or not America should take credit for it. I think there is something to be validated about American ingenuity, as well as the innate abilities of all mankind. But should all Americans take credit for that particular accomplishment? I don’t think we can parse out all the variables. JFK, the engineers and physicists, the organizers, the families of the key players, etc. all had a part, as well as the educational environment of the day, imported from other countries as it partially was, the Puritan work ethic, and the British colonial spirit I’m sure had something to do with it, not that that motivated the competition for the Russians, who thought of it more as innate Russian superiority and entitlement to do the best, hardest thing. It seems to me that American nationalism is more about a proposed proper consequence of being the most moral, again British, and Russian is about innate racial abilities, and I am impressed with Russian abilities. Back to variables, I’m sure the African influence in America also had a part, and not just the Hidden Figures kind, but in that you can’t take out the geological, climatic, African, Spanish, French, Dutch, German, Chinese, Russian, etc, not to mention American Indian elements of American culture as non-contributory. And the individual players should be seen as more contributory than the white Americans in later generations, but we do appreciate the descendants’ connection to their forbears.
I think evolutionists, who are a large part of the Intellectual Dark/Deep Web – I count Hugh Ross and Stephen Meyer as every bit as Intellectually Deep – are more bonded to the enlightenment and the Axial revolution because it fits their ideas of evolutionary advancement. The rest of us think intellectual ability is impressive, but just like an athlete is. Do athletic achievements advance human genetics? Records are always broken, but that could be psychological and dietary. I think these things can change human genetics but if you say advanced or superior, you start sounding racist.
I’m on board with criticizing alpha struggles. And I can tolerate some evolutionary historical talk. But it does not stop there. Evolution is a pervasive anthropology in real time.
Let me back up. The conversations I’m listening to on YouTube among the people I referenced earlier are not only about combatting nihilism, meaninglessness, polarization, and narcissism, but on the flip side, a new emergent order. Emergence happens when the sum is greater than the parts, for example when two people have a breakthrough conversation neither could have predicted. I can see that. But I just realized 1 hr and 26 min into this conversation among people introduced on Rebel Wisdom that evolutionists think humans are emergent.
This is a problem because being purposefully created and emerging as some sort of unplanned chemical reaction are two very different things. So god to them is the “next big thing”, not the first big thing. Christianity is about return, not emerge. Return to God, return to your first love, and even come back to yourself, as the prodigal son did. Can they incorporate, much less tolerate, a Christian creationist world view in their unity scheme? I want to hear them talk more about out groups. And I am open to hear them talk about how Christianity didn’t (as in it’s over for them) get us where we needed to go, or at least not all the way.
What they are saying about connectivity and coherence reminds me of the Tower of Babel where God disrupted the unified endeavor, as he did in the Garden of Eden, to become god without God. For some reason it seems the dispersal trend has ended and the unity trend has begun through technologies such as global shipping, the telephone, and now the internet. What will emerge? Something new or something old? Now for the rest of the convo.
In listening to Episode 37 of Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, I first went into flight mode when he was again dismissive of an absolute essence. I’ve already been in fight mode in previous posts to defend God. Now I’m going to try the respectful mode.
I can agree with everything being sacred and infinitely emanating. This is because everything is made by God and made to participate in God. I can even go so far as to say that God has given them a separate life/freedom of their own, which part non-Christians can commune with and be blessed by. Most of creation chooses to cooperate with God. Why shouldn’t a rock enjoy being coalesced, and a hammer being used to shatter, heat and pressure withstanding somewhat? We can respect the reality of and in all things. Is there any room for disrespect? When things are warped. Unreality has no substance, but misrepresentation is still a thing. There is a wise way to be respectful, which is full of real knowledge, and a foolish way, which is full of untruths.
Being dismissive and oversimplistic does not demonstrate a grasp on the reality in things. I think most dismissiveness is that way, but there is a time to walk away. It takes wisdom to know when, as Kenny Rogers says.
And how to make people and things glow. Where they always already glowing, or can we help them?
Stardust starting at 1:32
Closer to Truth short talk
Discussion on Heidegger with Guy Sengstock and Johannes Niederhauser, specifically at 1 hour 44 min 45 sec.
I have finished the videos linked in my previous post, except the circling founder one, and now the one above. Vervaeke and VanderKlay talk about Orthodoxy and theosis! And immanence vs transcendence! In his reading of St. Dyonisius, I’m wondering if Vervaeke has encountered the essence/energies distinction.
Today I put it on shuffle to mix up the artists and styles.
In this interview with Paul VanderKlay, a reformed pastor on YouTube, John Vervaeke lists modern day symptoms of the meaning crisis.
Among them, he says that in America in particular, suicide is going up because of nihilistic meaninglessness, and narcissism is also becoming more of a problem. To me, if nothing is inherently or essentially relevant, then life isn’t either, so why not commit suicide? He says that the universe isn’t inherently relevant because when one dies, it’s not relevant to him in particular anymore. I mean no disrespect, but isn’t that a narcissistic point of view? And this is only true if there is no afterlife. God is eternally relevant if there is a heaven, or even a hell.*
He points out that the answer is secular means of connectedness through meditation, flow state inducing physical activities, and in the part of the interview I’m at now, he’s talking about Circling conversations. I listened to the Rebel Wisdom interview with Guy Sengstock the other day, who invented Circling around 20 years ago.
In that interview, they said Guy had a really good conversation with John Vervaeke, found here.
and the interview on Circling with Jordan Hall mentioned in the Paul VanderKlay convo:
Or maybe it was this one
Oh yeah, I also wanted to listen to this one with John Vervaeke, “Elucidating the Bridges between Naturalism and Christianity”
*btw, Vervaeke also mentioned in I think the Episode on horror, that the only time he got scared in a horror story was in the Shining (which I think is King’s best book so far). It was when Jack Nicholson is slashing through the door and something tells him it’s time to go. Vervaeke says that monsters and other things that prey upon horror victims can be seen as someone’s own symbolic demons that can be defeated by fixing one’s own problems and addictions. But this was another entity directing him. I think that Vervaeke may be horrified by the idea of possession, and Christianity can be seen that way. I wont parse the right and the wrong way that can be taught right now, but I wonder if atheists perhaps fear God too much. Granted, many Christians don’t fear Him enough, or they describe Him too scarily.
Now back to my video.
Vervaeke has a pretty interesting explanation for how our brains respond to symbols in Awakening from the Meaning Crisis: The Symbol, Sacredness, and the Sacred, Ep. 34.
In regard to the Sacred, he reminds me of Jordan Peterson’s evolutionary explanation for our spiritual sides. They posit that it has been developed across the millennia. However. There seems to have been a Big Bang in religious/symbolic conceptualization with the advent of modern humans. Animals and primates do not think this way. Maybe we acquired a bacteria that made us suddenly evolve.
I am interested in new discoveries about archaic hominins, so this recent lecture about new finds in the Denisova cave is right up my ally. [edit: the lecture gets pretty speculative, but it’s interesting.]
He repeated the evolutionist claim that mitochondria is bacterial, and that reminded me that I said in my last post I’d look it up.
Here is Dr Fazale Rana demonstrating that he is not the only scientist who finds the co opting bacteria theory for the acquisition of mitochondria and thus the origin of placental reproduction lacking. (The ado ends at 5 minutes.)
Now back to my Denisova video.