I finally caught up. By going on to episode after episode promising myself I would rewatch later to hopefully get more of what was discussed, but too curious to see what came next to recapture. Feeling I understood just enough to hang in there. Thank you John Vervaeke, it is such a joyride to follow your lectures, and let the mind explore ancient and new territory. Thank you for being so generous with your knowledge and wisdom.

"I would not in any way dare to claim that I am a wise person." Hmm, seems like the sort of thing a wise person might say

Watching you be cautious, makes me more cautious. Watching you be careful in the way you are putting things together, makes me more careful in the way I put things together. So I think you are already spreading wisdom around. We already have the promise from wisdom that she will come if we desire and value her.

Superb, here comes the sauce. I love this series, thanks for doing the work that you do. "The wise person must realize this knowledge through self-transformation." Yes! Preach!

Books in the Video: - Wisdom, Its Nature, Origins and Development - Robert Sternberg - A Hanbook of Wisdom - Sternberg, Jordan - The Cambridge Handbook of Wisdom - Sternberg and Glück - Applying Wisdom to Contemporary World Problems - Sternberg and Glück - Wisdom, Intelligence, Creativity and Success - Sternberg, Jarvin and Grigorenko - Wisdom, Intelligence and Creativity Synthesized - Sternberg

I appreciate YOUR time JV ❤️🍄 i probably not alone in this. That up till now maybe my head slipped into a spell of madness or maybe its just melancholy?🤔 both… from crunching all of that you have been saying in this lecture series. I also noticed the view count dropping as this goes on so i can understand your caution in the final words on this one JV. So to all that make it this far. just hang in there the “mind fuck” hopefully wanes for you and you can come back and finish this series. Much love ❤️

Thanks for sharing these lectures with the world.

In tiny voice: **triangle**

I cant stop getting amazed with all this information, i dont know if tacit knowledge is going to show up anymore, but is relevant to structure relevance for sure!

The real relevance of meaning is not only that it affords us an experience of greater and greater degrees of Reality as we progress in realizing Wisdom, but it does so by enhancing and layering the connectivity between signifiers (hence the synonymity of the words "meaning" and "significance") within any symbolic system. There is a direct relationship between the quantity of resonant coherence in a system of related signifiers and the significance they afford by virtue of meaningful association, connectivity, and interrelated salience to one's desideratum (whether it is of a physical-evolutionary nature served by intelligence, or of a sapiential-noetic nature served by wisdom).

Thank You, John!😁🙏🙏

Another great one

32:00 You joke, but a "Wisdom Industry" could very well occur. Our capacity for trivializing the sacred these days (ex. McMindfulness) seems to know no bounds. Contemplating how a pre-emptive countermeasure might work...

Thanks John.

"Every conscious experience has a corresponding symbol in the outer world. When one is able to perceive the subjective mentalistic origins of his experience, he is able to see through the suggestion of its apparent materiality. Then, instead of being a puppet who passively succumbs to the current of being thrust into a charade of symbols believed to be objectively real, he masterfully arranges the symbols of his experience in an intelligent fashion to structure his own episodes in the world to magnify That Which IS the Light to all symbols. Now know beyond the symbol... for the key must be found in order to grasp the unspoken meaning of symbols sometimes called words !" Kenneth Mills

Paul Vanderklay publishes a series of videos called the Freddy and Paul show. Featuring a man from his church named Freddy who is in a very unfortunate situation. I can't help but feel Freddy and people like him would be completely lost in this world without people like Paul and the Christian philosophy. Paul makes a good point that Christianity scales well. It works for genius level thinker's as well as the simple minded. I feel like this project has become highly esoteric, mind boggling even for the most intelligent people. How do you make it work for Freddy?

WISDOM LET US ATTEND

Sorry John, this lecture was perhaps the most difficult to follow. It felt like it all blurred together. The last explanation was perhaps the most clear. Perhaps more cleared "beginnings" and "endings" to each theory might have been helpful. Thanks for all your work. I'm looking forward to the rest of the videos!

It's so strange- i find myself practicing the Psycho-technologies that you advocate for. for instance, I incorporated 'optimal grip' as a metric for doing something 'Right' and it's just a part of my thinking now. From practicing for a test, to trying to cook a new meal in the kitchen- I'm more involved (participatory knowing) by searching for the Right way.

47:00 Sometimes common good is implicit goal, even in cultures where equality is not being stressed. For example, in Hinduism, there is focus on everyone playing their role in society adequately. On surface level it can seem like Hinduism does not promote common good. However, in Bhagwad Gita, it becomes clear that doing one's duty without expectations is seen is the way of achieving common good. The battle of Mahabharat is fought with the goal of spreading sense of justice in society.

Hey Mr. Vervaeky, I very much like your content so far! And while I think some parts of the series is overly descriptive, the amount of tools and descriptive understanding you bring is increadable and pricless. At the same point I could not help but think that some widom exercise is needed for the self transendance seeking individual. I would recommend adding this program exercises involving real life complex problems / virtue conflict, and ways to look at things in an opmimal seeking way. Real world scenerios are very context specific but always have some insight behind them. for me the amount of descriptive knowledge was too much and would rather skip to the dimonds more quickly since I not coming from the field of cognitive science. Love your work! and it have already changed my life for the better. Thank you !

Having a dialogue with oneself, internalising the sage, is something creative writers do: they create characters to explore a theme from different perspectives and the protagonist ultimately chooses what s/he believes to be the most correct (wise) view. Might story-creation be a psycho-technology for wisdom?

transformational change seem's to be central in wisdom and spirituality. Can we say that being wise is cultivating our own transformational change or is it too restrictive ?

If the "goal" of wisdom is meaning in life. Could you also make the case that the goal of wisdom is alleviation of suffering?

For me wisdom is being able to apply an understanding of a less complex system to a more complex one. Foolishness is when the attempt at wisdom fails and requires one to drop down a level or not move up. A more profound foolishness could also be the possibility of a greater understanding where the entire system of systems is put into a box and seen as half of a partnership with potential. Any thing that moves in a system is on one side: completely self referential and with a infinite capacity for wisdom, knowledge, movement. I don't see wisdom being part of the potential since wisdom involves movement (like thinking) and when something moves it drops out of potential. There's nothing we can do to describe accurately this potential except maybe to see time and knowledge as two mechanisms for unfolding the potential. Theories are discarded/updated because the context changes, and because a static result is akin to death/rejoining the potential.

At 27:50 you edge up to an explication of the phenomena and causes of being foolishness. But no progress. Bernard Lonergan speaks of relevance derailed by cognitive oversight and unbridled desire, augmented by dangerous feelings. Bad judgment is no stranger to self-inflicted certainties of ostensible relevance. What you might call unreconstituted foolishness.Lonergan’s might help to provide an avenue to understanding the persistent stumbling block to wisdom and their expression in human community. What I am saying is that post modern philosophy needs to revisit the notion of sin in the work of Lonergan, Girard, and Eugene Webb, to mention a few philosophical theologians, whose philosophies of wisdom demonstrate a realistic understanding of how difficult the virtuous life is.

14:00 But you appear to be a wise person to me, at least in the way you carefully handle each topic.

Wisdom is knowing the reason for the world; remembering True Self Intelligence is thinking, whereas Wisdom is the transcendence of the interior monolog Intelligence is delusion and Wisdom is the transcendence of thought Simply BEING. Can you simply BE without thought? If not then you are not coming from Wisdom, but rather delusion

How are you defining relevance realization?

Thank you, John Vervaeke, for your lectures. By and large I accord with the direction you have taken, and have learned a number of things. I have a couple of criticisms of your critique of Sternberg’s diagram. 1. Given the ecological crisis facing the biosphere and the interconnectedness of all things which both quantum and astro physics demonstrates, how is it anachronistic to suggest that wisdom is dependent on considering/serving the common good? Many have identified capitalism, particularly neoliberal capitalism, which destroys both the natural commons and the common good, eg “there is no society” (Thatcher), as the cancer which is harming both people and the planet. How might it be wise to serve only some nebulous virtues while contributing to the destruction of human, animal and plant habitat, and thus facilitating human extinction? 2. Values are inextricably intertwined with strengths and interests. Each person has a hierarchy of values through which she interacts with the world, where each lower value is filtered through the values above it. Also some values are necessary for a full and meaningful life. If those values are low on the hierarchy or do not appear at all, then the individual will struggle and will very likely not be considered wise. For example, authoritarians in the US have what might be called a “strict father morality.” A certain hierarchy of values flows out of such a moral system. I struggle to perceive someone with a narcissistic authoritarian tendency to be wise. Given this, how could values not play a critical role in wisdom?

Is there a way to get access to the lectures notes? The time line and content of things (so to look for interesting open ends to investigate)

17:00 24:00 agape gives meaning...

It looks like finding meaning in life comes from something like mental excellence, for want of a better term. We've looked at intelligence, rationality and wisdom. Perhaps wisdom is the key but I think many people find meaning in life without it. I'm not religious but I think love might be more the thing than wisdom.

I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated

for future series a smart tv would be even better to see whats on the board, surgical handwriting sir😅

Lots of words but hard to find wisdom here.

A question for the gentlemen in the comment section. It’s not an easy or fun comment so by all means, do not consider yourself subject to any demands. JV sets a dichotomy between value in subjective love for the objectively desirable and value in subjective love for what affords ‘meaning making’ (he calls this ‘transjective’). I regret that I can’t help but ask why we should care about caring. The religious view’s maneuverability on this ground wasn’t anything impressive, but there was at least something along the lines of: you’re emanating from a fundamentally objectively desirable ground of all things, so living is important, period. While most of us aren’t able to subscribe to that view, many of us are undeniably shy an alternative. Let’s say I’m inclined to think the stuff I care about has this solid ontological grounding, and my whole motivational structure hinges on these sorts of thoughts. Could such a person remain motivated if it turns out that this is an experience that could occur in completely different kinds of arrangements of priorities as long as one remains ‘within the ballpit’ (by which I mean, that one happens to be involved in something one’s RR machinery is vibing to)? Is a given person inside a ballpit when prof. Vervaeke tells him that he ‘ought’ to have a transjective connection to a ballpit? Another way I’ve asked this question before is: is relevance realization relevant? Should anyone care for such a bounded little existence? Nothing shy of the blindest, yet also excruciatingly self-aware, sort of faith could get a person by if they were to think in this way. I do not mean to imply that a person’s ability to find their entire psyche insufficient for living is evidence of something beyond the psyche. It could be a fatal malfunction, the blind watchmaker revealing his blindness. What will save the last man? Note that I am not accusing JV of ‘relativism’. I understand the nuance in transjectivity; it is a kind of function that arises from a stable set of circumstances; there would be sound meaning making and self-deceptive contrivance. All I’m hoping for here is some sort of peek into what Vervaekean-minded people think the value in meaning-making is, as opposed to not existing. I can imagine all the easy answers, but I believe it’s more fair let oneself be surprised.