Decoding the Demons *Advance Episode*
Added 2022-08-20 12:24:42 +0000 UTCHey everyone,
We released the Elgen episode today so hopefully you are enjoying that but we also recorded a mini-decoding that we will release some time this week focused on a conversation between John Vervaeke and Jonathan Pageau on Demonology.
It's partly edited but not completely so might be some rough patches.
Feedback as always is welcome!
Enjoy!
Comments
My take on the demons discussion, and why someone like Pageau might use the term (bless you both for having the patience, my blood pressure prevents me) is that it is part of an attempt to rehabilitate the historical Jesus. With so much of christian history and theology (not to mention congregation size) taking a hit in the 20th century, the historical Jesus must be preserved as still cool, progressive, wise and worthy of the cult. But Jesus subscribed to a world where demons and evil spirits inflicted chaos on our world and one of his primary claims to fame was that of an exorcist. So, in the post-enlightenment world, that sounds a little looney. Among otherwise rational Christians, Jesus’ belief in demons is…um…problematic. In any case, in trying to lend credence to demons (even as a metaphor) it leaves room to infer that Jesus himself was also seeing the world in a more sophisticated way (i.e., distributed cognition vs ghostbusters). So even if Jesus did talk about demons it was because it was the lingua franca of mental and physical illness. The foundational hero of Christianity, however, had a more subtle world view.
Kristen Sweder
2022-09-10 16:04:25 +0000 UTCJust on "egregore". Yes, definitely a Theosophical reference, and the analogy with Theosophy fits really well with these guy's shtick, JBP, and to some extent the wider "sensemaker" milieu. But, quirky anecdote, it's a word I recognise as it's the name of the radio show of one the French libcom groups (OCL) I aggregate for our international news service. Although in this case its a reference to Capital. Because to a certain leftist, Capital as distinct from capitalism, is a kind of non-spiritual egregore. Which is worth keeping in mind for people from a reductivist materialist perspective, who would accept capitalism as the name for the system we live in, but would reject the metaphysical possibility of a non-human systemic emergent like "Capital" that dominates the motion of the system. For e.g. the idea of "(inhuman) self-expanding value" that drives capitalism to ever-expanding production, regardless of the human costs of the ensuing environmental catastrophe we are now living through.
Paul Bowman
2022-08-30 09:14:43 +0000 UTCAristotle defined happiness as “eudaimonia” or “having a good daimon”. The Greek “daimon” became the Roman “genius” meaning “attendant spirit of a person or place.” Of course the Christians took the word to be “demon” and ran with it. In Spanish today if you say someone is “de mal genio” it means they are in a bad mood. Happiness = being in a good mood!
Mark K
2022-08-25 17:25:27 +0000 UTCBecause they’re too manly to abide the neuter case?
Jennifer Nelson
2022-08-23 17:42:22 +0000 UTCWell with Theosophists, maybe it's Magus Opus
Geoff Whiting
2022-08-23 17:39:57 +0000 UTCI think you guys should make a making sense of sense-making board game. I can see game squares like, “Nice definitional two-step, advance to the next round of the conversation and collect 5 metaphysical stars.”
Aaron Holder
2022-08-20 23:10:56 +0000 UTCI’d say no connection!
Geoff Fitch
2022-08-20 23:07:44 +0000 UTCMatt, that old chestnut!
Allan Malcolm McPherson
2022-08-20 22:06:07 +0000 UTCNah, I’d bet good money that Vervaeke’s published work has only a very tenuous connection with demons. I do agree though that he is someone that offers definitions, in fact most sensemakers do!
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-08-20 21:54:07 +0000 UTCLet's just define it as a masterwork written at such a high level that it could only be compared to a world championship chess match, in terms of intellectual ability?
Empty_Cognizance
2022-08-20 20:50:30 +0000 UTCGood episode and obvious, fair critiques. My only beef is with y'all accusing someone of fuzzy thinking when they repeatedly refer to their published work on the topic but not bothering to read said published work. A bit fuzzy, no?
Geoff Fitch
2022-08-20 18:08:51 +0000 UTCIt was wordplay I swear!
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-08-20 16:48:58 +0000 UTCAgreed!
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-08-20 16:48:50 +0000 UTCI wish Jonothan had devoted himself to Dungeons and Dragons...missed his calling.
Allan Malcolm McPherson
2022-08-20 14:27:42 +0000 UTCI took the magnus bit as wordplay...hasn't Brett taught you anything? It's NEVER a mistake!
Allan Malcolm McPherson
2022-08-20 14:26:39 +0000 UTCServes me right for commenting while I’m listening and not waiting until the end :) To be clear, it’s still nonsense
Jennifer Nelson
2022-08-20 13:00:19 +0000 UTCYeah this comes up at the end. They are talking about demons but reference they could talk about daimons and other things too.
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-08-20 12:57:02 +0000 UTCRegarding the malevolence vs benevolence, is it possible they’re using demon (daemon, daimon) in the more Classical sense that can also refer to a tutelary deity as well, not necessarily demonic as we understand it? https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Daimon
Jennifer Nelson
2022-08-20 12:55:43 +0000 UTCCan you believe I even looked that up before saying!
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-08-20 12:42:40 +0000 UTCCan someone remind me the difference between Gurometry and Guru-ology? I always forget
Andy
2022-08-20 12:37:02 +0000 UTCMagnum opus (not magnus opus) 🙂
Jennifer Nelson
2022-08-20 12:34:37 +0000 UTC
