I love the enthusiasm and intelligence Vervaeke brings to his work, but am struck by how cavalierly he uses the word "reality."
Reality is a foundational word that depends on (among countless other elements) the psychology, cosmology, philosophy, theology, and culture of the person using it. He may, or may not, be referencing Shankara, Nagarjuna, Nishitani, Eckhart, or scientific materialists when he uses the word, but he's not transparent about its depths. I suspect Vervaeke's used to talking with people would be inclined to take the word "reality" for granted, when it's anything but and is profoundly different between traditions.
The word "reality" always requires a context. Vervaeke wants to find a universal substrate of meaning irrespective of philosophy and theology. In my experience the deeper he goes, the more important context becomes. People generally believe they've reached an ultimate reality, only to be dismayed it's not. Often, we're not transparent to ourselves the depths of this word.
Not to mention the idea that ‘reality’ can be understood as a symbolic fiction. Pulling from Lacanian psychoanalysis there. The Real however, as the unrepresentable, challenges the coherence of that fabricated domain, leading to experiences of breakdown and inconsistency.
Enthusiastic for sure, Vervaeke, but a little too quick to grant meaning to this existence!
Wonderful presentation of Lacan's Real. I phrase the issue of the real this way:
Self is like a Klein bottle--it's unbounded (our inside and outside are One) and it mirrors experience (by curving on itself). Constellating inside Self is Ego, which, like a lens, focuses Self's Experience on itself.
With Self, we know that we know. With Ego, the "I" that knows it knows becomes paramount.
Self and Ego protect us from....Lacan's Real. My term for what Lacan is referring to is the immutable annihilating unknowable of unbeing. (IAUoU).
To encounter IAUoU (Lacan's Rupture) destroys Self, the universe, everything. Like floating in outer space without a spacesuit, we can only survive IAUoU for a few seconds before dying or becoming permanently catatonic. Self is our spacesuit in the real.
Like the gravity of a black hole, Self is drawn to IAUoU but can never "reach it." If it does, Self no longer exists.
Where I differ most with Lacan is there is something around and within Self, intrinsic to Self, that I call the Skin of Being, which is more complex than I'll mention here. Skin of Being enables Self to exist in the Real without being annihilated in IAoU.
Skin of Being, beautiful! Do you have some resources online somewhere?
I like your description of Self, and the Ego as a lens on it!
I’m a little apprehensive of Lacan’s theory because it sort of presupposes starting from an individual separate person to analyze.
What the Real for me points to is the yawning gap in our ability to come up with words for - or make sense of - a traumatic experience. (With the process of becoming a separate self being fairly traumatizing in its own right, if you keep insisting that that is the case!)
When someone becomes convinced that life has no meaning (anymore), it may be worth acknowledging that it indeed may not. Some other European thinkers came up with some philosophies in that respect. This YT explainer explains the difference between nihilism, existentialism and absurdism: https://youtu.be/J0aX8QMkFAI?si=bbXu3WUcM0st6-Bl
I encountered Lacan's Rupture twice; once when I was 12 years-old and once when I was 19. Here's a link to an unfinished website I'm developing for three books I'm about to publish on how it works:
Really great Podcast Nate. Definitely helped by the chemistry between you which for me is fueled by that magical curiosity in the universe. Thank you and John. 🙏
I love the enthusiasm and intelligence Vervaeke brings to his work, but am struck by how cavalierly he uses the word "reality."
Reality is a foundational word that depends on (among countless other elements) the psychology, cosmology, philosophy, theology, and culture of the person using it. He may, or may not, be referencing Shankara, Nagarjuna, Nishitani, Eckhart, or scientific materialists when he uses the word, but he's not transparent about its depths. I suspect Vervaeke's used to talking with people would be inclined to take the word "reality" for granted, when it's anything but and is profoundly different between traditions.
The word "reality" always requires a context. Vervaeke wants to find a universal substrate of meaning irrespective of philosophy and theology. In my experience the deeper he goes, the more important context becomes. People generally believe they've reached an ultimate reality, only to be dismayed it's not. Often, we're not transparent to ourselves the depths of this word.
Not to mention the idea that ‘reality’ can be understood as a symbolic fiction. Pulling from Lacanian psychoanalysis there. The Real however, as the unrepresentable, challenges the coherence of that fabricated domain, leading to experiences of breakdown and inconsistency.
Enthusiastic for sure, Vervaeke, but a little too quick to grant meaning to this existence!
Lacan’s Real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UPhrQjHi_s
Wonderful presentation of Lacan's Real. I phrase the issue of the real this way:
Self is like a Klein bottle--it's unbounded (our inside and outside are One) and it mirrors experience (by curving on itself). Constellating inside Self is Ego, which, like a lens, focuses Self's Experience on itself.
With Self, we know that we know. With Ego, the "I" that knows it knows becomes paramount.
Self and Ego protect us from....Lacan's Real. My term for what Lacan is referring to is the immutable annihilating unknowable of unbeing. (IAUoU).
To encounter IAUoU (Lacan's Rupture) destroys Self, the universe, everything. Like floating in outer space without a spacesuit, we can only survive IAUoU for a few seconds before dying or becoming permanently catatonic. Self is our spacesuit in the real.
Like the gravity of a black hole, Self is drawn to IAUoU but can never "reach it." If it does, Self no longer exists.
Where I differ most with Lacan is there is something around and within Self, intrinsic to Self, that I call the Skin of Being, which is more complex than I'll mention here. Skin of Being enables Self to exist in the Real without being annihilated in IAoU.
Skin of Being, beautiful! Do you have some resources online somewhere?
I like your description of Self, and the Ego as a lens on it!
I’m a little apprehensive of Lacan’s theory because it sort of presupposes starting from an individual separate person to analyze.
What the Real for me points to is the yawning gap in our ability to come up with words for - or make sense of - a traumatic experience. (With the process of becoming a separate self being fairly traumatizing in its own right, if you keep insisting that that is the case!)
When someone becomes convinced that life has no meaning (anymore), it may be worth acknowledging that it indeed may not. Some other European thinkers came up with some philosophies in that respect. This YT explainer explains the difference between nihilism, existentialism and absurdism: https://youtu.be/J0aX8QMkFAI?si=bbXu3WUcM0st6-Bl
I encountered Lacan's Rupture twice; once when I was 12 years-old and once when I was 19. Here's a link to an unfinished website I'm developing for three books I'm about to publish on how it works:
www.noegoodyssey.com
Here's a link to a printer's proof of the beginning three essays in the first book.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/w7anpe1phyc5u59yhymr7/Three-Introductory-Essays-to-No-Ego-Odyssey.pdf?rlkey=j9qs2rbhakj0w2ji7udvcba30&st=t1nw8xoh&dl=0
I enjoyed this episode a lot. Sparked many insights and added new questions.
Really great Podcast Nate. Definitely helped by the chemistry between you which for me is fueled by that magical curiosity in the universe. Thank you and John. 🙏